Adding a field to an empty struct - matlab

Assuming I have a struct S of size 0x1 with the fields a and b, what is the most elegant way to add a field c to it?
Usually I am able to do it like this:
S = struct('a',0,'b',0); %1x1 struct with fields a,b
S.c = 0
However, if I receive an empty struct this does not work anymore:
S = struct('a',0,'b',0);
S(1) = []; % 0x1 struct with fields a,b
S.c = 0;
% A dot name structure assignment is illegal when the structure is empty.
% Use a subscript on the structure.
I have thought of two ways to deal with this, but both are quite ugly and feel like workarounds rather than solutions. (Note the possibility of a non-empty struct should also be dealt with properly).
Adding something to the struct to ensure it is not empty, adding the field, and making the struct empty again
Initializing a new struct with the required fieldnames, filling it with the data from the original struct, and overwriting the original struct
I realize that it may be odd that I care about empty structs, but unfortunately part of the code that is not managed by me will crash if the fieldname does not exist. I have looked at help struct, help subsasgn and also searched for the given error message but so far I have not yet found any hints. Help is therefore much appreciated!

You can use deal to solve this problem:
S = struct('a',0,'b',0);
S(1) = [];
[S(:).c] = deal(0);
This results in
S =
1x0 struct array with fields:
a
b
c
This works also for non-empty structs:
S = struct('a',0,'b',0);
[S(:).c] = deal(0);
which results in
S =
a: 0
b: 0
c: 0

How about
S = struct('a', {}, 'b', {}, 'c', {} );
To create an empty struct?
Another way is to use mex file with mxAddField as a workaround to the error you got:
A dot name structure assignment is illegal when the structure is empty.
Use a subscript on the structure.

You can use setfield to solve the problem.
S = struct('a', {}, 'b', {});
S = setfield(S, {}, 'c', [])
This results in
S =
0x0 struct array with fields:
a
b
c

Just to expand on #Shai's answer, here is a simple MEX-function you can use:
addfield.c
#include "mex.h"
void mexFunction(int nlhs, mxArray *plhs[], int nrhs, const mxArray *prhs[])
{
char *fieldname;
/* Check for proper number of input and output arguments */
if (nrhs != 2) {
mexErrMsgIdAndTxt("struct:nrhs", "Two inputs required.");
} else if (nlhs > 1) {
mexErrMsgIdAndTxt("struct:nlhs", "Too many output arguments.");
} else if (!mxIsStruct(prhs[0])) {
mexErrMsgIdAndTxt("struct:wrongType", "First input must be a structure.");
} else if (!mxIsChar(prhs[1]) || mxGetM(prhs[1])!=1) {
mexErrMsgIdAndTxt("struct:wrongType", "Second input must be a string.");
}
/* copy structure for output */
plhs[0] = mxDuplicateArray(prhs[0]);
/* add field to structure */
fieldname = mxArrayToString(prhs[1]);
mxAddField(plhs[0], fieldname);
mxFree(fieldname);
}
Example:
>> S = struct('a',{});
>> S = addfield(S, 'b')
S =
0x0 struct array with fields:
a
b

Related

Failure to compare strings with eBPF

When I run the following code I get an error.
#include <uapi/linux/utsname.h>
#include <linux/pid_namespace.h>
struct uts_namespace {
struct kref kref;
struct new_utsname name;
};
static __always_inline char * get_task_uts_name(struct task_struct *task){
return task->nsproxy->uts_ns->name.nodename;
}
int cmpNamespace(void *ctx) {
struct task_struct *task;
task = (struct task_struct *)bpf_get_current_task();
if (strcmp(get_task_uts_name(task),"namespace")==0){
...
}
return 0;
}
Error:
bpf: Failed to load program: Invalid argument
unknown opcode 00
processed 0 insns (limit 1000000) max_states_per_insn 0 total_states 0 peak_states 0 mark_read 0
HINT: The 'unknown opcode' can happen if you reference a global or static variable, or data in read-only section. For example, 'char *p = "hello"' will result in p referencing a read-only section, and 'char p[] = "hello"' will have "hello" stored on the stack.
But this works just fine
int cmpNamespace(void *ctx) {
char * test = "aaaa";
if (strcmp(test,"namespace")==0){
...
}
return 0;
}
Can anyone tell me why this is happening and how I could go about correcting it ?
I am using python bcc to hook the function.
Thanks!
The issue is that you are using strcmp. BPF programs cannot use functions from the libc.
Your second example probably works because the compiler is able to optimize it and remove the call to strcmp. Since both arguments are known at compile-time, there's no need to use strcmp to know if they are equal.
As pointed out by #Qeole in comments, you can use __builtin_memcmp() instead, since you know the size of one of your strings and are only trying to know if they are equal.

Is there a way to cast an SystemVerilog assignment pattern into a packed struct?

Per the System Verilog LRM "Assignment pattern format", a data structure can be printed into a string as follows:
module top;
typedef enum {ON, OFF} switch_e;
typedef struct {switch_e sw; string s;} pair_t;
pair_t va[int] = '{10:'{OFF, "switch10"}, 20:'{ON, "switch20"}};
initial begin
$display("va[int] = %p;",va);
$display("va[int] = %0p;",va);
$display("va[10].s = %p;", va[10].s);
end
endmodule : top
This example may print:
va[int] = '{10:'{sw:OFF, s:"switch10"}, 20:'{sw:ON, s:"switch20"}} ;
va[int] = '{10:'{OFF, "switch10"}, 20:'{ON, "switch20"}} ;
va[10].s = "switch10";
Is there a way to do the reverse? What I'd like to do is to take an assignment pattern string as a plusarg or a line read from a file, and assign that to a variable at run time, e.g.:
string assign_pattern = "'{10:'{sw:OFF, s:"switch10"}, 20:'{sw:ON, s:"switch20"}}";
$cast(va, assign_pattern); // ** This doesn't work **
If not generally possible, is there a way to do that specifically for packed struct types?
You can't do the reverse. SystemVerilog was designed as a compiled languageā€”there's no parser available at run-time. You would have to create a parser in SystemVerilog or C smart enough to decode the assignment patterns you expect to read in.
Another option is converting the file of assignment patterns into code that could be compiled in with the rest of your code.
Another option based on your comments
You can use a bit-stream or streaming operator to parse a bit-string into a struct. The struct does not need to be packed, it just needs to be made up from fixed-sized, integral values.
module top;
typedef enum bit [1:0] {ON, OFF, INBETWEEN} switch_e;
typedef struct {switch_e sw; bit [8*8:1] s; bit [5:0] value;} trio_s; // 72 bits
typedef bit [71:0] uint72_t;
trio_s v,x;
uint72_t l;
initial begin
x = '{sw:OFF, s:"switch10", value:'h0a};
l = uint72_t'(x);
$displayh(l);
v = trio_s'(l);
$displayh("v = %p",v);
$display("v.s = %s",v.s);
end
endmodule
This displays
# 5cddda5d18da0c4c0a
# v = '{sw:OFF, s:8320234785195176240, value:10}
# v.s = switch10
pair_t va[int] = '{10:'{OFF, "switch10"}, 20:'{ON, "switch20"}};
is the same as
pair_t va[int]
initial begin
va[10].sw = OFF;
va[10].s = "switch10";
..
Saying that, you can write your own parser of a +arg string (or strings) which will assign values to the array fields in a task. This is the only possibility. For exmple:
string indx = "1";
string sw = "off";
initial begin
int i = indx.atoi();
va[i].sw = sw == "off" ? OFF : ON;
...

Mex files: how to return an already allocated matlab array

I have found a really tricky problem, which I can not seem to fix easily. In short, I would like to return from a mex file an array, which has been passed as mex function input. You could trivially do this:
void mexFunction(int nargout, mxArray *pargout [ ], int nargin, const mxArray *pargin[])
{
pargout[0] = pargin[0];
}
But this is not what I need. I would like to get the raw pointer from pargin[0], process it internally, and return a freshly created mex array by setting the corresponding data pointer. Like that:
#include <mex.h>
void mexFunction(int nargout, mxArray *pargout [ ], int nargin, const mxArray *pargin[])
{
mxArray *outp;
double *data;
int m, n;
/* get input array */
data = mxGetData(pargin[0]);
m = mxGetM(pargin[0]);
n = mxGetN(pargin[0]);
/* copy pointer to output array */
outp = mxCreateNumericMatrix(0,0,mxDOUBLE_CLASS,mxREAL);
mxSetM(outp, m);
mxSetN(outp, n);
mxSetData(outp, data);
/* segfaults with or without the below line */
mexMakeMemoryPersistent(data);
pargout[0] = outp;
}
It doesn't work. I get a segfault, if not immediately, then after a few calls. I believe nothing is said about such scenario in the documentation. The only requirement is hat the data pointer has been allocated using mxCalloc, which it obviously has. Hence, I would assume this code is legal.
I need to do this, because I am parsing a complicated MATLAB structure into my internal C data structures. I process the data, some of the data gets re-allocated, some doesn't. I would like to transparently return the output structure, without thinking when I have to simply copy an mxArray (first code snippet), and when I actually have to create it.
Please help!
EDIT
After further looking and discussing with Amro, it seems that even my first code snippet is unsupported and can cause MATLAB crashes in certain situations, e.g., when passing structure fields or cell elements to such mex function:
>> a.field = [1 2 3];
>> b = pargin_to_pargout(a.field); % ok - works and assigns [1 2 3] to b
>> pargin_to_pargout(a.field); % bad - segfault
It seems I will have to go down the 'undocumented MATLAB' road and use mxCreateSharedDataCopy and mxUnshareArray.
You should use mxDuplicateArray, thats the documented way:
#include "mex.h"
void mexFunction(int nlhs, mxArray *plhs[], int nrhs, const mxArray *prhs[])
{
plhs[0] = mxDuplicateArray(prhs[0]);
}
While undocumented, the MEX API function mxCreateSharedDataCopy iswas given as a solution by MathWorks, now apparently disavowed, for creating a shared-data copy of an mxArray. MathWorks even provides an example in their solution, mxsharedcopy.c.
As described in that removed MathWorks Solution (1-6NU359), the function can be used to clone the mxArray header. However, the difference between doing plhs[0] = prhs[0]; and plhs[0] = mxCreateSharedDataCopy(prhs[0]); is that the first version just copies the mxArray* (a pointer) and hence does not create a new mxArray container (at least not until the mexFunction returns and MATLAB works it's magic), which would increment the data's reference count in both mxArrays.
Why might this be a problem? If you use plhs[0] = prhs[0]; and make no further modification to plhs[0] before returning from mexFunction, all is well and you will have a shared data copy thanks to MATLAB. However, if after the above assignment you modify plhs[0] in the MEX function, the change be seen in prhs[0] as well since it refers to the same data buffer. On the other hand, when explicitly generating a shared copy (with mxCreateSharedDataCopy) there are two different mxArray objects and a change to one array's data will trigger a copy operation resulting in two completely independent arrays. Also, direct assignment can cause segmentation faults in some cases.
Modified MathWorks Example
Start with an example using a modified mxsharedcopy.c from the MathWorks solution referenced above. The first important step is to provide the prototype for the mxCreateSharedDataCopy function:
/* Add this declaration because it does not exist in the "mex.h" header */
extern mxArray *mxCreateSharedDataCopy(const mxArray *pr);
As the comment states, this is not in mex.h, so you have to declare this yourself.
The next part of the mxsharedcopy.c creates new mxArrays in the following ways:
A deep copy via mxDuplicateArray:
copy1 = mxDuplicateArray(prhs[0]);
A shared copy via mxCreateSharedDataCopy:
copy2 = mxCreateSharedDataCopy(copy1);
Direct copy of the mxArray*, added by me:
copy0 = prhs[0]; // OK, but don't modify copy0 inside mexFunction!
Then it prints the address of the data buffer (pr) for each mxArray and their first values. Here is the output of the modified mxsharedcopy(x) for x=ones(1e3);:
prhs[0] = 72145590, mxGetPr = 18F90060, value = 1.000000
copy0 = 72145590, mxGetPr = 18F90060, value = 1.000000
copy1 = 721BF120, mxGetPr = 19740060, value = 1.000000
copy2 = 721BD4B0, mxGetPr = 19740060, value = 1.000000
What happened:
As expected, comparing prhs[0] and copy0 we have not created anything new except another pointer to the same mxArray.
Comparing prhs[0] and copy1, notice that mxDuplicateArray created a new mxArray at address 721BF120, and copied the data into a new buffer at 19740060.
copy2 has a different address (mxArray*) from copy1, meaning it is also a different mxArray not just the same one pointed to by different variables, but they both share the same data at address 19740060.
The question reduces to: Is it safe to return in plhs[0] either of copy0 or copy2 (from simple pointer copy or mxCreateSharedDataCopy, respectively) or is it necessary to use mxDuplicateArray, which actually copies the data? We can show that mxCreateSharedDataCopy would work by destroying copy1 and verifying that copy2 is still valid:
mxDestroyArray(copy1);
copy2val0 = *mxGetPr(copy2); % no crash!
Applying Shared-Data Copy to Input
Back to the question. Take this a step further than the MathWorks example and return a share-data copy of the input. Just do:
if (nlhs>0) plhs[0] = mxCreateSharedDataCopy(prhs[0]);
Hold your breath!
>> format debug
>> x=ones(1,2)
x =
Structure address = 9aff820 % mxArray*
m = 1
n = 2
pr = 2bcc8500 % double*
pi = 0
1 1
>> xDup = mxsharedcopy(x)
xDup =
Structure address = 9afe2b0 % mxArray* (different)
m = 1
n = 2
pr = 2bcc8500 % double* (same)
pi = 0
1 1
>> clear x
>> xDup % hold your breath!
xDup =
Structure address = 9afe2b0
m = 1
n = 2
pr = 2bcc8500 % double* (still same!)
pi = 0
1 1
Now for a temporary input (without format debug):
>> tempDup = mxsharedcopy(2*ones(1e3));
>> tempDup(1)
ans =
2
Interestingly, if I test without mxCreateSharedDataCopy (i.e. with just plhs[0] = prhs[0];), MATLAB doesn't crash but the output variable never materializes:
>> tempDup = mxsharedcopy(2*ones(1e3)) % no semi-colon
>> whos tempDup
>> tempDup(1)
Undefined function 'tempDup' for input arguments of type 'double'.
R2013b, Windows, 64-bit.
mxsharedcopy.cpp (modified C++ version):
#include "mex.h"
/* Add this declaration because it does not exist in the "mex.h" header */
extern "C" mxArray *mxCreateSharedDataCopy(const mxArray *pr);
bool mxUnshareArray(const mxArray *pr, const bool noDeepCopy); // true if not successful
void mexFunction(int nlhs,mxArray *plhs[],int nrhs,const mxArray *prhs[])
{
mxArray *copy1(NULL), *copy2(NULL), *copy0(NULL);
//(void) plhs; /* Unused parameter */
/* Check for proper number of input and output arguments */
if (nrhs != 1)
mexErrMsgTxt("One input argument required.");
if (nlhs > 1)
mexErrMsgTxt("Too many output arguments.");
copy0 = const_cast<mxArray*>(prhs[0]); // ADDED
/* First make a regular deep copy of the input array */
copy1 = mxDuplicateArray(prhs[0]);
/* Then make a shared copy of the new array */
copy2 = mxCreateSharedDataCopy(copy1);
/* Print some information about the arrays */
// mexPrintf("Created shared data copy, and regular deep copy\n");
mexPrintf("prhs[0] = %X, mxGetPr = %X, value = %lf\n",prhs[0],mxGetPr(prhs[0]),*mxGetPr(prhs[0]));
mexPrintf("copy0 = %X, mxGetPr = %X, value = %lf\n",copy0,mxGetPr(copy0),*mxGetPr(copy0));
mexPrintf("copy1 = %X, mxGetPr = %X, value = %lf\n",copy1,mxGetPr(copy1),*mxGetPr(copy1));
mexPrintf("copy2 = %X, mxGetPr = %X, value = %lf\n",copy2,mxGetPr(copy2),*mxGetPr(copy2));
/* TEST: Destroy the first copy */
//mxDestroyArray(copy1);
//copy1 = NULL;
//mexPrintf("\nFreed copy1\n");
/* RESULT: copy2 will still be valid */
//mexPrintf("copy2 = %X, mxGetPr = %X, value = %lf\n",copy2,mxGetPr(copy2),*mxGetPr(copy2));
if (nlhs>0) plhs[0] = mxCreateSharedDataCopy(prhs[0]);
//if (nlhs>0) plhs[0] = const_cast<mxArray*>(prhs[0]);
}

MATLAB: Conversion to char from cell is not possible

So I've got a struct, settings, which contains three fields, averageValue, heightLabels and heights.
settings.averageValue = 7.5121 7.2742 7.4602
settings.heights = 105.1000 105.2000 105.3000
I'm looping through these with the following code:
for m = 1:length(settings.averageValue)
settings.heightLabels(m) = {sprintf{'%.1f %s', settings.heights(m), 'm')};
end
However, I get the error "Conversion to char from cell is not possible.". Any ideas?
Well, I get your question now. Let's say you have variables A,B,C,D which you want to club together in a struct variable. Here's how you do it:
settings.A = A;
settings.B = B;
settings.C = C;
settings.D = D;
settings is a struct variable now, and if you want to access A, you refer to it as:
disp(settings.A) %display A
settings.A = 10; %edit A
newA = settings.A; %assign A to a new variable
Pass settings to a function, do whatever.
Okay guys I figured it out. It was a datatype question; my struct field was supposed to be a cell but it was a string. Rather embarrassing.
I resolved the problem with the following code when creating the struct fields:
settings.averageValue = {};
settings.heightLabels = {};
Thanks for your help!

What are some efficient ways to combine two structures in MATLAB?

I want to combine two structures with differing fields names.
For example, starting with:
A.field1 = 1;
A.field2 = 'a';
B.field3 = 2;
B.field4 = 'b';
I would like to have:
C.field1 = 1;
C.field2 = 'a';
C.field3 = 2;
C.field4 = 'b';
Is there a more efficient way than using "fieldnames" and a for loop?
EDIT: Let's assume that in the case of field name conflicts we give preference to A.
Without collisions, you can do
M = [fieldnames(A)' fieldnames(B)'; struct2cell(A)' struct2cell(B)'];
C=struct(M{:});
And this is reasonably efficient. However, struct errors on duplicate fieldnames, and pre-checking for them using unique kills performance to the point that a loop is better. But here's what it would look like:
M = [fieldnames(A)' fieldnames(B)'; struct2cell(A)' struct2cell(B)'];
[tmp, rows] = unique(M(1,:), 'last');
M=M(:, rows);
C=struct(M{:});
You might be able to make a hybrid solution by assuming no conflicts and using a try/catch around the call to struct to gracefully degrade to the conflict handling case.
Short answer: setstructfields (if you have the Signal Processing Toolbox).
The official solution is posted by Loren Shure on her MathWorks blog, and demonstrated by SCFrench here and in Eitan T's answer to a different question. However, if you have the Signal Processing Toolbox, a simple undocumented function does this already - setstructfields.
help setstructfields
setstructfields Set fields of a structure using another structure
setstructfields(STRUCTIN, NEWFIELDS) Set fields of STRUCTIN using
another structure NEWFIELDS fields. If fields exist in STRUCTIN
but not in NEWFIELDS, they will not be changed.
Internally it uses fieldnames and a for loop, so it is a convenience function with error checking and recursion for fields that are themselves structs.
Example
The "original" struct:
% struct with fields 'color' and 'count'
s = struct('color','orange','count',2)
s =
color: 'orange'
count: 2
A second struct containing a new value for 'count', and a new field, 'shape':
% struct with fields 'count' and 'shape'
s2 = struct('count',4,'shape','round')
s2 =
count: 4
shape: 'round'
Calling setstructfields:
>> s = setstructfields(s,s2)
s =
color: 'orange'
count: 4
shape: 'round'
The field 'count' is updated. The field 'shape' is added. The field 'color' remains unchanged.
NOTE: Since the function is undocumented, it may change or be removed at any time.
I have found a nice solution on File Exchange: catstruct.
Without testing the performance I can say that it did exactly what I wanted.
It can deal with duplicate fields of course.
Here is how it works:
a.f1 = 1;
a.f2 = 2;
b.f2 = 3;
b.f4 = 4;
s = catstruct(a,b)
Will give
s =
f1: 1
f2: 3
f3: 4
I don't think you can handle conflicts well w/o a loop, nor do I think you'd need to avoid one. (although I suppose efficiency could be an issue w/ many many fields...)
I use a function I wrote a few years back called setdefaults.m, which combines one structure with the values of another structure, where one takes precedence over the other in case of conflict.
% SETDEFAULTS sets the default structure values
% SOUT = SETDEFAULTS(S, SDEF) reproduces in S
% all the structure fields, and their values, that exist in
% SDEF that do not exist in S.
% SOUT = SETDEFAULTS(S, SDEF, OVERRIDE) does
% the same function as above, but if OVERRIDE is 1,
% it copies all fields of SDEF to SOUT.
function sout = setdefaults(s,sdef,override)
if (not(exist('override','var')))
override = 0;
end
sout = s;
for f = fieldnames(sdef)'
cf = char(f);
if (override | not(isfield(sout,cf)))
sout = setfield(sout,cf,getfield(sdef,cf));
end
end
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure that the "override" input is unnecessary (you can just switch the order of the inputs) though I'm not 100% sure of that... so here's a simpler rewrite (setdefaults2.m):
% SETDEFAULTS2 sets the default structure values
% SOUT = SETDEFAULTS(S, SDEF) reproduces in S
% all the structure fields, and their values, that exist in
% SDEF that do not exist in S.
function sout = setdefaults2(s,sdef)
sout = sdef;
for f = fieldnames(s)'
sout = setfield(sout,f{1},getfield(s,f{1}));
end
and some samples to test it:
>> S1 = struct('a',1,'b',2,'c',3);
>> S2 = struct('b',4,'c',5,'d',6);
>> setdefaults2(S1,S2)
ans =
b: 2
c: 3
d: 6
a: 1
>> setdefaults2(S2,S1)
ans =
a: 1
b: 4
c: 5
d: 6
In C, a struct can have another struct as one of it's members. While this isn't exactly the same as what you're asking, you could end up either with a situation where one struct contains another, or one struct contains two structs, both of which hold parts of the info that you wanted.
psuedocode: i don't remember the actual syntax.
A.field1 = 1;
A.field2 = 'a';
A.field3 = struct B;
to access:
A.field3.field4;
or something of the sort.
Or you could have struct C hold both an A and a B:
C.A = struct A;
C.B = struct B;
with access then something like
C.A.field1;
C.A.field2;
C.B.field3;
C.B.field4;
hope this helps!
EDIT: both of these solutions avoid naming collisions.
Also, I didn't see your matlab tag. By convention, you should want to edit the question to include that piece of info.