GCC macro with variable number of argument

#define pr(a, b...) printf(a, b) /* (*A) */
#define pr(a, b...) printf(a, ##b) /* (*B) */

pr("Hello\n"); /* (*1) */
pr("Hello %s\n", "World"); /* (*2) */ 
pr("Hello %s %s\n", "My", "World"); /* (*3) */

Above two kinds of macros looks like same at first look. But, there is difference.
In case of (*2) and (*3), (*A) and (*B) both work well.

In terms of (*1), it doesn't have second arguement. That is, it doesn't have arugment 'b'.
So, let's guess result of preprocessing.
Logically, in both case - (*A) and (*B) - "printf(a, )" should be a result, and GCC should complain about this syntax.
But, actual result is, (*A) doesn't work, but (*B) works well.

I didn't check GCC Spec. for this case but, it's interesting enough to leave post :-).

[C/C++/JAVA] 변수를 block중간에 선언하는 방법에 대한 단상.

변수는 사용하기 직전에 선언하는 것이 원칙인데.. 문제는 scope다.
C/C++/JAVA에서 명시적으로 ‘{ }’를 통해서 scope를 잡아주지 않으면, 이후에도 계속 해당 변수가 살아있는 상태가 되어서 좋지 못하다.
그래서 ‘{ }’를 사용해서 scope를 제한해 주는 것이 좋은데, 그렇게 하면, indentation에서 괜시리 한칸 들여쓰여지게 되어 미관상 – 개인적으로 – 마음에 안든다…
변수의 scope를 위한 이~~쁜~~ syntax가 있었으면 좋았을텐데… 라는 생각이 그냥 들어서…

[C/C++] enable/disable function/macro with define switch.

There are two simple examples for this.

#ifdef A
#define xxx(...) BBBB(__VA_ARGS__)
#define xxx(...)


#ifdef A
#define xxx(...) BBBB(__VA_ARGS__)
static inline void xxx(){}

I preferred the second one because at the first case, sometimes unexpected problems are issued. (Just personal opinion/preference...)

[C/C++] Fail to build Android with g++/gcc-4.6 (Ubuntu-11.10)

[ g++ issue ]

g++-4.4 / g++-4.5 doesn’t detect following case, but, g++-4.6 does.

< a.cpp >

class P {
    void a();

class A : public P {
    void p();

P::a() {
    // 'const' quailifier' is discard here!
    static_cast<const A*>(this)->p();

A::p() {

main() {
    return 0;

=================== Test ======================
$ g++-4.5 a.cpp   <= OK.
$ g++-4.6 a.cpp
a.cpp: In member function ‘void P::a()’:
a.cpp:13:33: error: passing ‘const A’ as ‘this’ argument of ‘void A::p()’ discards qualifiers [-fpermissive]

The problem is some of Android codes still have above bugs in its code – ex. frameworks/base/libs/utils/RefBase.cpp.
So, even if Android source code was successfully compiled at g++-4.4 or g++4.5, it may be failed at g++-4.6 (for example, upgrading host OS)

[ cc/gcc issue ]

Compiling with gcc-4.6 raises following warings.

<command-line>:0:0: warning: "_FORTIFY_SOURCE" redefined [enabled by default]

In some component which uses ‘-Werror’ option, this warning stops compilation.

[ Conclusion ]

So, you would better to use gcc/g++-4.4 instead of 4.6 when building Android, until above issues are resolved on Android baseline.
(ex. Ubuntu 11.10 as an Android host OS.)

[Linux][Shell] Cleaning PATH environment variable.

With using terminal for a long time, PATH variable tends to be longer and longer due to duplicated path.
Here is simple sample script – with Perl – to resolve this.

# remove duplication at give PATH-format-string
unique_path() {
perl -w -e '
    my %path_hash;
    exit unless (defined $ARGV[0]);
    foreach $p (split (/\:/, $ARGV[0])) {
        unless (defined $path_hash{$p}) {
            $path_hash{$p} = 1;
            push @newpath, $p;
    print join ":", @newpath;
' $1
PATH=$(unique_path "$PATH")

Done :-).

[C/C++] func() vs. func(void)

In C, func() and func(void) have different function signature.
(But, in C++, these two are same.)

‘func()’ means ‘this function can have any number of arguments (0 ~ infinite)’.
But, ‘func(void)’ means ‘this function doesn’t have argument.’
See following example.

#ifdef CASE1
void func(void); /* (1) */
void func();     /* (2) */

func(int i) {
        ; /* do something */

If ‘CASE1’ is defined, compiling this file complains error like “error: conflicting types for ‘func'”.
But, ‘CASE1’ is not defined, this is well-compiled.
Now, you can clearly understand difference.

So, using ‘func(void)’ is better for readibility if ‘func’ really doesn’t have any arguement, instead of just ‘func()’.

*** One more. ***
In C, ‘extern’ for function is default visibility.
So, in function declaration, ‘extern void func(void);’ is exactly same with ‘void func(void);’.
Therefore any of them is OK.
( [ omitting ‘extern’ for simplicity ] vs. [ using ‘extern’ to increase readability ] )
But, default visibility of function depends on compiler.
For portability reason, using macro is usually better instead of using explicit directive – especially at shared library header.
(Ex. ‘EXTERN void func(void)’)

[C/C++] Tips for OOP – module initialization.

OOP SW design is usually compose of one main control routine (henceforth MCR) and lots of sub modules.
But, MCR don’t need to (must not need to) know inside implementation of every sub modules.
Sometimes, MCR don’t need to know even existence of some sub modules.
The problem is, most sub modules require initialization.
How can sub modules whose existence is now known, be initialized.
Due to this issue, principle of information hiding is sometimes broken.
Let’s see below example.

FILE : main.c
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {


FILE : moduleA.c

FILE : moduleB.c

Assume that, each module requires initialization and main.c don’t need to know existence of each module.
How can we resolve this issue?
Easiest way is calling initialization function of each module with damaging principle of information hiding little bit, like mentioned above.

FILE : main.c
extern void moduleA_init();
extern void moduleB_init();

int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {

FILE : moduleA.c
void moduleA_init() { ... }

FILE : moduleB.c
void moduleB_init() { ... }

At above code, main.c becomes to know existence of moduleA and moduleB.
That is, in terms of modules, principle of information hiding is damaged although it’s very little.
Additionally, global symbol space is dirtier.
Regarding maintenance, whenever new module is added, modifying main.c is unavoidable.
But, main.c doesn’t have any dependency on newly added module.
With this and that, this way is uncomfortable.
How can we clean up these?
Using constructor leads us to better way.

Functions in constructor are executed before main function.
So, it is very useful for this case.
Easiest way is setting every initialization function as constructor.
But, in this case, we cannot control the moment when module is initialized at.
Therefore, it is better that each module’s initialization function is registered to MCR, and MCR calls these registered function at right moment.
Following pseudo code is simple implementation of this concept.

FILE : main.c
void register_initfn(void (*fn)()) {
        list_add(initfn_list, fn);

int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
        /* initialize modules */
        foreach(initfn_list, fn)

FILE : module.h
extern void register_initfn(void (*fn)());
#define MODULE_INITFN(fn)                               \
        static void __##fn##__() __attribute__ ((constructor)); \
        static void __##fn##__() { register_initfn(&fn); }

FILE : moduleA.c
#include "module.h"
static void _myinit() { ... }

FILE : moduleB.c
#include "module.h"
static void _myinit() { ... }

Now, MCR don’t need to know existence of each modules.
And, MCR can also control the moment of each module’s initialization.
In addition, adding new module doesn’t require any modification of MCR side.
It is closer to OOP’s concept, isn’t it?

We can improve this concept by customizing memory section.
Here is rough description of this.

* Declare special memory section for initializer function.
    - In gcc, ld script should be modified.

* Put initializer function into this section.
    - __attribute__ ((__section__("xxxx"))) can be used.

* MCR can read this section and call these functions at appropriate moment.

Actually, this way is better than using constructor in terms of SW design.
Linux kernel uses this concept in it’s driver model.
(For deeper analysis, kernel source code can be good reference.)
But, in many cases, using this concept may lead to over-engineering.
So, if there isn’t any other concern, using constructor is enough.

[Java] Visibility에서 추가했으면 하는 것….

Java visibility는 private, protected, default(package private), public 이렇게 4단계가 있다.
그런데 개인적으로 한단계 정도 더 있었으면 한다.

기능별로 block을 형성하도록 programming할 수 있어야 한다. 그게 oop의 기본이기도 하다.
하나의 class가 하나의 block을 형성할 수 있으면 좋겠지만, 보통 여러개의 class가 하나의 기능 block을 형성한다.
그리고, 이 기능 block의 내부 interface는 package private으로 하고, 외부 interface는 public으로 둔다.
이게 Java에서의 일반적인 programming방법이다.
그런데, 어떤 기능 block 자체가 더 큰 기능 block의 한 부분이게 하고 싶은 경우는 어떻게 해야 하는가?
물론, 재 사용성을 위해서 모든 기능 블럭은 자체적으로 완벽하게 동작하도록 디자인하고, 관련 interface는 public으로 해 둘 수 있게 하는것이 이상적이긴 하다.
그렇지만, 대부분의 경우, 큰 기능 블럭의 한 부분임을 가정하고 programming하는 경우가 많다.
왜냐하면, 일반적인 기능블럭(public interface를 가지는…)을 만들어 내기 위해서는 추가적인 많은 노력들이 필요하기 때문이다.
그런데, Java의 visibility는 이런 경우를 해결해 줄 수 없다.
(하나의 package로 구성된 기능 block의 interface는 public이여야만 한다.)
그래서 개인적으로 추가적인 안을 제시해 본다.

*** tree-based name space ***

name space가 tree형태를 가진다. java convention을 이용해 설명하면, ‘.’을 separator로 하고, 각 name이 tree의 path를 의미하도록 하는 것이다.
예를 들면, ‘com.java.io’라면, ‘java’는 ‘com’의 child 이고, ‘io’는 ‘java’의 child가 된다.

***  parent private ***

visibility가 자신의 parent에게만 되도록…

음.. visibility가 자꾸 많아지는 것도 안 좋긴 한데… 일단 이런게 있었으면 좋겠다… 단점도 있을 것 같은데.. 좀더 고민해 보자…

[Linux][C/C++] strange pipe issue in linux in ‘ylisp’.

In Linux, read or write side of pipe is automatically closed if there is no reference for the other side – file is really closed.
But I faced with strange case when implementing a ‘ylisp’ function – pipe is automatically closed even if there is still valid file descriptor that references that pipe.
Here is simpler version of issued code.

/* function */
    int   fd[2];
    pid_t cpid;
    pipe (fd);
    cpid = fork();
    if (cpid == 0) {
        close (fd[0]); /* close read end */
        dup2 (fd[1], STDIN_FILENO);
        /* --- (*a) --- */
        close (fd[0]); /* <-- (*1) */
        /* --- (*b) --- */
        execvp (...)
    } else {            /* Parent writes argv[1] to pipe */
        close (fd[1]); /* close write end */
        ... /* read end is used */

ylisp is multi-threaded program. And building/running environment is

OS : Linux 2.6.35-24-generic-pae #42-Ubuntu SMP Thu Dec 2 03:21:31 UTC 2010 i686 GNU/Linux
Compiler : gcc (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.4.4-14ubuntu5) 4.4.5
libc : Ubuntu EGLIBC 2.12.1-0ubuntu10.1

For testing, I put test code to check whether STDIN_FILENO is valid file descriptor or not.
Interestingly, sometimes, STDIN_FILENO is invalid at (*b), even if it is valid at (*a).
I don’t have any idea what happens to this code.
Fortunately, commenting out (*1) seems to be a walk-around for this issue, but it’s just temporal solution.
‘fd[0]’ is never closed in this walk-around.

I need to look into this with more time… very interesting…

[Java] Some notable stuffs of VM

⚫ From VM Spec

⚬ In particular, x != x is true if and only if x is NaN, and (x<y) == !(x>=y) will be false if x or y is NaN.
⚬ round towards zero
⚬ Multibyte data items are always stored in big-endian order.

⚫ Java VM Type Signature

Signature                     Java Type
Z                             boolean
B                             byte
C                             char
S                             short
I                             int
J                             long
F                             float
D                             double
L fully-qualified-class ;     fully-qualified-class
[ type                        type[]
( arg-types ) ret-type        method type

to be continue …