I have a code in c, with some function callbacks as follows
int (*number) (int i, int j);
And then a structure such as follows
typedef struct _name{
int sal;
number details;
}name;
I tried to bind this as follows
py::class_<name>(m,"name")
.def(py::init<>())
.def_readwrite("sal",&name::sal)
.def_property("details",[](name &self){return self.details;},[](name &self,std::function<int(int,int)> func){self.details=*func.target<name>();});
When I tried to do as follows in python
def some_manipulation(int a, int b):
return a*b;
name.details=some_manipulation;
I am ending segmatation fault core dumped.
pybind11 wraps python function with temporary std::function instance when you pass it to C++.
Then std::function::target() returns nullptr, because stored callable object is NOT a plain function pointer, see https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/functional/function/target
Related
Hello I am using dart:ffi to build an interface with my native c/c++ library.
and I needed a way to get a callback from c to dart as an example in sqlite:
int sqlite3_exec(
sqlite3*, /* An open database */
const char *sql, /* SQL to be evaluated */
int (*callback)(void*,int,char**,char**), /* Callback function */
void *, /* 1st argument to callback */
char **errmsg /* Error msg written here */
);
the third parameter in sqlite3_exec is function pointer to a callback.
so if I called this function in dart using ffi I need to pass a function pointer: and in dart:ffi Pointer class there is a function named fromFunction witch accepts a dart static function and an exceptionalReturn; but just by calling this function to get the function pointer of a dart managed function: a (sigterm) is raised and the dart code no long work in the process.
So My Question: Is there any way to get a native callback in dart, as in Python, c#, ..
Extra:
Is there any way to include dartino in a flutter project, since this ForeignDartFunction covers what I need.
I got an example to work. Hopefully you can adapt this to your case.
Example C function
EXTERNC int32_t foo(
int32_t bar,
int32_t (*callback)(void*, int32_t)
) {
return callback(nullptr, bar);
}
Dart code
First the typedefs. We need two for the native function foo and one for the Dart callback.
typedef example_foo = Int32 Function(
Int32 bar, Pointer<NativeFunction<example_callback>>);
typedef ExampleFoo = int Function(
int bar, Pointer<NativeFunction<example_callback>>);
typedef example_callback = Int32 Function(Pointer<Void>, Int32);
and the code for the callback
static int callback(Pointer<Void> ptr, int i) {
print('in callback i=$i');
return i + 1;
}
and the lookup
ExampleFoo nativeFoo =
nativeLib.lookup<NativeFunction<example_foo>>('foo').asFunction();
and, finally, use it like this:
int foo(int i) {
return nativeFoo(
i,
Pointer.fromFunction<example_callback>(callback, except),
);
}
as expected, foo(123) prints flutter: in callback i=123 and returns 124
I am trying to implement bigint class in c++, it's not completed yet, i have encountered some errors that i am unable understand.
I have erased all other functions (as they are unnecessary in this case)
and karatsuba is not yet completed (but that should't pose a problem in this case).
In the multiply function (overloaded * ) my compiler gives an error:
passing 'const BigInt' as 'this' argument discards qualifiers [-fpermissive]
at line
ans.a = karatsuba(n,m);
I understand that this would occur when i am trying to change a constant object or object passed to a constant function, in my case i am merely creating a new vector and passing it to karatsuba function.
Removing const from overloded * gets rid of this error.
So,does this mean that a constant function can't change anything at all? (including local variables?)
class BigInt {
typedef long long int ll;
typedef vector<int> vi;
#define p10 1000000000;
#define range 9
vi a;
bool sign;
public:
BigInt operator * (const BigInt &num) const
{
vi n(a.begin(),a.end()),m(num.a.begin(),num.a.end());
BigInt ans;
ans.sign = !(sign ^ num.sign);
while(n.size()<m.size()) n.push_back(0);
while(n.size()>m.size()) m.push_back(0);
ans.a = karatsuba(n,m);
return ans;
}
vi karatsuba(vi a,vi b)
{
int n = a.size();
if(n <= 16)
{
// some code
}
// some code
return a;
}
};
Ok so after googling a bit more, i realized that this pointer is implicitly passed to the oveloaded * and then on to karatsuba (as it is a member function of the class), and as karatsuba is not a constant function, there is no guarantee that it won't change the object contents, hence this error is triggered.
One solution is to declare karatsuba as static, as static member functions don't receive this pointer (they can even be called with out a class object simply using :: operator) , read more about them from here Static data members and member functions.
All that is needed to be changed is :-
static vi karatsuba(vi a,vi b)
{
int n = a.size();
if(n <= 16)
{
// some code
}
// some code
return a;
}
I am creating a class that needs a reference to the test bench's configuration object. Since the configuration must be intact throughout the simulation, I pass it as a const ref object. Here is a sudo code that I want to run:
class tb_config;
int unsigned rate;
int unsigned chnls[];
const int unsigned nb_chnls;
function new (int unsigned rate, int unsigned nb_chnls);
this.rate = rate;
this.nb_chnls = nb_chnls;
chnls = new[nb_chnls];
endfunction
endclass
class tx_phy;
static int phy_id;
tb_config cfg;
function new (int unsigned phy_id, const ref tb_config cfg);
this.phy_id = phy_id;
this.cfg = cfg;
endfunction
endclass
module test;
tb_config cfg = new(100, 4);
tx_phy phy = new( 1234, cfg);
endmodule
The code above works perfectly fine and it meets my expectation. But if I change the arguments in tx_phy::new to function new (const ref tb_config cfg, int unsigned phy_id); and pass the values to the constructor accordingly I get the following error in Cadence Incisive:
invalid ref argument usage because actual argument is not a variable.
Also same thing happens when I test it with Aldec in edaplayground: https://www.edaplayground.com/x/5PWV
I assume this is a language limitation, but is there any other reason for that??
The reason for this is because the argument kind is implicit if not specified. You specified const ref for the first argument, but nothing for the second argument, so it is also implicitly const ref. Adding input to the second argument declaration fixes this.
function new (const ref tb_config cfg, input int unsigned phy_id);
I also want to add const ref tb_config cfg is equivalent to writing
function new (tb_config cfg, int unsigned phy_id);
Both of these arguments are implicitly input arguments, which means they are copied upon entry.
A class variable is already a reference. Passing a class variable by ref means that you can update the handle the class variable has from within the function. Making the argument a const ref means you will not be able to update the class variable, but you can still update members of the class the variable references. There is no mechanism to prevent updating members of class object if you have a handle to it other than by declaring them protected or local.
The only place it makes sense to pass function arguments by ref in SystemVerilog is as an optimization when the arguments are large data structures like an array, and you only need to access a few of the elements of the array. You can use task ref arguments when the arguments need to be updated during the lifetime of the task (i.e. passing a clock as an argument).
I have an in-house C++ library that I've successfully exposed to Python using Boost.Python. It accepts a user-created Python object and then uses some methods within that object to perform certain tasks, and it works quite well for the most part.
The Python use of the library looks like:
class Foo(object):
def __init__(self, args):
"""create an instance of this class with instance-specific attributes"""
def Bar1(self, a, b, c):
"""do something with the given integers a, b and c"""
return a + (b*c)
def Bar2(self, a, b, c):
"""do something else with the given integers a, b and c"""
print (a*b) + c
import mylib
cheese = mylib.Wine()
qux = Foo()
cheese.setup(qux)
cheese.do_something(1)
cheese.do_something(2)
The "Wine" object in C++ looks like:
#include <boost/python.h>
#include <Python.h>
class Wine {
public:
Wine() {};
~Wine() {};
void setup(boost::python::object baz) {
baz_ = baz;
};
static void do_something(boost::python::object pyreq) {
int request = boost::python::extract<int>(pyreq);
int a = 1;
int b = 2;
int c = 3;
if (request == 1) {
int d = boost::python::extract<int>(baz_.attr("Bar1")(a, b, c));
};
else if (request == 2) {
baz_.attr("Bar2")(a, b, c);
};
};
private:
static boost::python::object baz_;
};
BOOST_PYTHON_MODULE(mylib)
{
using namespace boost::python;
class_<Wine>("Wine")
.def("do_something", &Wine::do_something)
.staticmethod("do_something")
.def("setup", &Wine::setup)
;
};
The problem is that, after successfully executing all of the tasks, the program terminates with a SegFault. This isn't really a huge deal because the code that I need to execute still executes, and the tasks that I need to perform are all performed. The SegFault only occurs on the destruction of this C++ "Wine" object. Still, it's an inelegant outcome and I'd like to fix the problem.
What I could gather from an online search implied that this is a problem with improper declaration of ownership to Python. The end result is that the C++ destructor gets called twice, and the second call causes a SegFault.
Unfortunately I haven't been able to remedy the problem so far. Available documentation only covers the basics and I haven't been able to replicate some success others have had using boost smart pointers and some fancy declaration/destruction tricks in C++ with it. Any guidance would be much appreciated.
The problem is that the static Wine::baz_ object is being destroyed during static/global destruction. This is after the Python runtime has been finalized, but since boost::python::object uses the Python C-API, its destruction requires a valid Python runtime (though possible not if the object refers to None.) By arranging for baz_ to be destroyed before Python finalization, you should be able to avoid the segfault. The cleanest approach overall might be to make baz_ a non-static member variable.
I'm working on finishing up my server for my first iPhone application, and I want to implement a simple little feature.
I would like to run a function (perhaps method as well), if another function returns a certain value after a certain waiting period. Fairly simple concept.... right?
Here's my basic foundation.
template <typename T,class TYP>
struct funcpar{
T (*function)(TYP);
TYP parameter;
funcpar(T (*func)(TYP),TYP param);
funcpar& operator=(const funcpar& fp);
};
The goal here is to be able to call funcpar::function(funcpar::parameter) to run the stored function and parameter, and not have to worry about anything else...
When I attempted to use a void* parameter instead of the template, I couldn't copy the memory as an object (because I didn't know what the end object was going to be, or the beginning for that matter) and when I tried multiple timers, every single object's parameter would change to the new parameter passed to the new timer... With the previous struct I have a
question:
Is it possible to make an all-inclusive pointer to this type of object inside a method of a class? Can I templatize a method, and not the whole class? Would it work exactly like a function template?
I have a managing class that holds a vector of these "jobs" and takes care of everything fairly well. I just don't know how to use a templatized function with the struct, or how to utilize templates on a single method in a class..
I'm also utilizing this in my custom simple threadpool, and that's working fairly well, and has the same problems...
I have another question:
Can I possibly store a function with a parameter before it's run? Something like toRun = dontrunmeyet(withThisParameter);? Is my struct even necessary?
Am I going about this whole thing incorrectly?
If this is overly ambiguous, I can set you up with my whole code for context
In order to create a class method that takes a template parameter, yes, it would work almost exactly like a function template. For example:
class A
{
public:
template<typename T>
void my_function(const T& value) { }
};
int main()
{
A test;
test.my_function(5);
return 0;
}
Secondly, for your structure, you can actually turn that into a functor-object that by overloading operator(), lets you call the structure as-if it were a function rather than having to actually call the specific function pointer members inside the structure. For instance, your structure could be re-written to look like this:
#include <iostream>
template <class ReturnType, class ParameterType>
class funcpar
{
private:
ReturnType (*function)(ParameterType);
ParameterType parameter;
public:
funcpar(ReturnType (*func)(ParameterType),ParameterType param):
function(func), parameter(param) {}
funcpar& operator=(const funcpar& fp);
//operator() overloaded to be a function that takes no arguments
//and returns type ReturnType
ReturnType operator() ()
{
return function(parameter);
}
};
int sample_func(int value)
{
return value + 1;
}
int main()
{
funcpar<int, int> test_functor(sample_func, 5);
//you can call any instance of funcpar just like a normal function
std::cout << test_functor() << std::endl;
return 0;
}
BTW, you do need the functor object (or your structure, etc.) in order to bind a dynamic parameter to a function before the function is called in C/C++ ... you can't "store" a parameter with an actual function. Binding a parameter to a function is actually called a closure, and in C/C++, creating a closure requires a structure/class or some type of associated data-structure you can use to bind a function with a specific parameter stored in memory that is used only for a specific instance of that function call.