...
{
int *r1, *r2;
r1 = GetCorrectRegister(first);
r2 = GetCorrectRegister(second);
switch ((OpCode)current.opcode)
{
case OpCode.ADDR:
r2 = r1 + r2;
break;
}
}
...
This is the obvious, easiest way to solve this problem. However, I'd prefer not to use an unsafe method if I can avoid it. Basically, I have a bunch of integers which represent registers. There are assembly instructions that take register mnemonics as arguments. I'd prefer not to have the logic to determine which variable to assign to in each branch of the switch statement or make some sort of kludgey GetRegisterValue(mnemonic) and SetRegisterValue(mnemonic) functions. Is there some C#y way to do something similar?
I have a bunch of integers which
represent registers
The obvious thing here is not to have a bunch of integers. Create an array
int[] registers = new int[NUMBER_OF_REGISTERS];
Your above code turns into
{
int r1Index, r2Index;
r1Index = GetCorrectRegisterIndex(first);
r2Index = GetCorrectRegisterIndex(second);
switch ((OpCode)current.opcode)
{
case OpCode.ADDR:
registers[r1Index] = registers[r1Index] + registers[r2Index];
break;
}
}
Additionally, use an enum to create symbolic names for your register names where each name gives you the right index.
How about using a class and ref parameters?
class Registers
{
public int EAX;
public int EBX;
//...
public void ExecuteBinaryOperation(int opCode, ref int r1, ref int r2)
{
// ...
// binary operation ADD.
r2 = r1 + r2;
//...
}
}
and in code:
registers.ExecuteBinaryOperation(0, ref registers.EAX, ref registers.EBX);
Related
In C++, you could write the following code:
int Animal::*pAge= &Animal::age;
Animal a;
a.*pAge = 50;
Is there similar functionality in C#?
Edit: To clarify, I am not asking about pointers. I am asking about "pointers to members", a feature found in C++ that is used with the .* and ->* operators.
Edit 2: Here is an example of a use case for members to pointers.
Let's say we have the following class:
class Animal
{
int age;
int height;
int weight;
…
}
And let's say that we want to write methods that will find the average age/height/weight/etc. of all Animals in an array. We could then do this:
int averageAge(Animal[] animals)
{
double average = 0;
for (…)
average += animals[i].age;
return average/animals.length;
}
int averageHeight(Animal[] animals)
{
//code here again
}
int averageWeight(Animal[] animals)
{
//code here again
}
We would end up copying and pasting a lot of code here, and if our algorithm for finding the average changed, we would encounter a maintenance nightmare. Thus, we want an abstraction of this process for any member. Consider something like this:
int averageAttribute(Animal[] animals, Func<Animal, int> getter)
{
double average = 0;
for (…)
average += getter(animals[i]);
return average/animals.length;
}
which we could then call with
averageAttribute(animals, (animal) => animal.age);
or something similar. However, using delegates is slower than it has to be; we are using an entire function just to return the value at a certain location in the Animal struct. In C++, members to pointers allow you to do pointer math (not the right term but I can't think of a better term) on structs. Just as you can say
int p_fourthAnimal = 3;
(animals + p_fourthAnimal)*
to get the value so many bytes ahead of the pointer stored in the variable animals, in C++, you could say
int Animal::* p_age = &Animal::age;
animal.*p_age //(animal + [the appropriate offset])*
to get the value so many bytes ahead of the pointer stored in the variable animal; conceptually, the compiler will turn animal.*p_age into (animal + [the appropriate offset])*. Thus, we could declare our averageAttribute as this instead:
int averageAttribute(Animal[] animals, Animal::* member)
{
double average = 0;
for (…)
average += animals[i].*member; //(animals[i] + [offset])*
return average/animals.length;
}
which we could then call with
averageAttribute(animals, &Animal::age);
In summary, pointers to members allow you to abstract a method such as our averageAttribute to all members of a struct without having to copy and paste code. While a delegate can achieve the same functionality, it is a rather inefficient way to get a member of a struct if you know you do not actually need the freedom allotted to you by a function, and there could even be edge use cases in which a delegate does not suffice, but I could not give any examples of such use cases. Does C# have similar functionality?
As other people have commented here, delegates are the way to achieve this in C#.
While a delegate can achieve the same functionality, it is a rather
inefficient way to get a member of a struct if you know you do not
actually need the freedom allotted to you by a function
It depends how the compiler and runtime implement that delegate. They could very well see that this is a trivial function and optimize the call away, like they do for trivial getters and setters. In F# for instance you can achieve this:
type Animal = { Age : int }
let getAge (animal:Animal) =
animal.Age
let inline average (prop:Animal->int) (animals:Animal[]) =
let mutable avg = 0.
for animal in animals do
avg <- avg + float(prop(animal)) // no function call in the assembly here when calling averageAge
avg / (float(animals.Length))
let averageAge = average getAge
You can get the same behaviour using delegates but that's not the same thing as delegates are pointers to functions in C++. What you're trying to achieve is possible in C# but not in the way you're doing in C++.
I think about a solution using Func:
public class Animal
{
public int Age { get; set; }
public int Height { get; set; }
public double Weight { get; set; }
public string Name { get; set; }
public static double AverageAttributeDelegates(List<Animal> animals, Func<Animal, int> getter)
{
double average = 0;
foreach(Animal animal in animals)
{
average += getter(animal);
}
return average/animals.Count;
}
}
List<Animal> animals = new List<Animal> { new Animal { Age = 1, Height = 2, Weight = 2.5, Name = "a" }, new Animal { Age = 3, Height = 1, Weight = 3.5, Name = "b" } };
Animal.AverageAttributeDelegates(animals, x => x.Age); //2
Animal.AverageAttributeDelegates(animals, x => x.Height); //1.5
It's working but you are bound to the int type of the property since the func is declared as Func<Animal, int>. You could set to object and handle the cast:
public static double AverageAttributeDelegates2(List<Animal> animals, Func<Animal, object> getter)
{
double average = 0;
foreach(Animal animal in animals)
{
int value = 0;
object rawValue = getter(animal);
try
{
//Handle the cast of the value
value = Convert.ToInt32(rawValue);
average += value;
}
catch(Exception)
{}
}
return average/animals.Count;
}
Example:
Animal.AverageAttributeDelegates2(animals, x => x.Height).Dump(); //1.5
Animal.AverageAttributeDelegates2(animals, x => x.Weight).Dump(); //3
Animal.AverageAttributeDelegates2(animals, x => x.Name).Dump(); //0
no, c# doesn't have a feature to point into (reference) object's members the way c++ does.
but why?
A pointer is considered unsafe. And even in unsafe area you cannot point to a reference or to a struct that contains references, because an object reference can be garbage collected even if a pointer is pointing to it. The garbage collector does not keep track of whether an object is being pointed to by any pointer types.
you mentioned a lot of duplicate code is used to implement it the non-pointer way, which isn't true.
Speed depends on how well the JIT compiles it, but you didn't test?
if you really run into performance problems, you need to think about your data structures and less about a certain way to access members.
If think the amount of comments under your Q shows, that you did not really hit a commonly accepted drawback of c#
var Animals = new Animal[100];
//fill array
var AvgAnimal = new Animal() {
age = (int)Animals.Average(a => a.age ),
height = (int)Animals.Average(a => a.height),
weight = (int)Animals.Average(a => a.weight)
};
the unsafe area of c# serves some ways access members by pointer, but only to value types like single structs and not for an array of structs.
struct CoOrds
{
public int x;
public int y;
}
class AccessMembers
{
static void Main()
{
CoOrds home;
unsafe
{
CoOrds* p = &home;
p->x = 25;
p->y = 12;
System.Console.WriteLine("The coordinates are: x={0}, y={1}", p->x, p->y );
}
}
}
I created a method that takes 2 out parameters. I noticed that it is possible for calling code to pass in the same variable for both parameters, but this method requires that these parameters be separate. I came up with what I think is the best way to validate that this is true, but I am unsure if it will work 100% of the time. Here is the code I came up with, with questions embedded.
private static void callTwoOuts()
{
int same = 0;
twoOuts(out same, out same);
Console.WriteLine(same); // "2"
}
private static void twoOuts(out int one, out int two)
{
unsafe
{
// Is the following line guaranteed atomic so that it will always work?
// Or could the GC move 'same' to a different address between statements?
fixed (int* oneAddr = &one, twoAddr = &two)
{
if (oneAddr == twoAddr)
{
throw new ArgumentException("one and two must be seperate variables!");
}
}
// Does this help?
GC.KeepAlive(one);
GC.KeepAlive(two);
}
one = 1;
two = 2;
// Assume more complicated code the requires one/two be seperate
}
I know that an easier way to solve this problem would simply be to use method-local variables and only copy to the out parameters at the end, but I am curious if there is an easy way to validate the addresses such that this is not required.
I'm not sure why you ever would want to know it, but here's a possible hack:
private static void AreSameParameter(out int one, out int two)
{
one = 1;
two = 1;
one = 2;
if (two == 2)
Console.WriteLine("Same");
else
Console.WriteLine("Different");
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int a;
int b;
AreSameParameter(out a, out a); // Same
AreSameParameter(out a, out b); // Different
Console.ReadLine();
}
Initially I have to set both variables to any value. Then setting one variable to a different value: if the other variable was also changed, then they both point to the same variable.
typedef struct {
int e1;
int e2;
int e3;
int e4;
int e5;
} abc;
void Hello(abc * a, int index)
{
int * post = (&(a->e1) + index);
int i;
for(i = 0; i<5; i++)
{
*(post + i) = i;
}
}
The problem I face here is how they able to access the next element in the struct by
*(post + i)
I'm not sure how all these would be done in C# and moreover, I don't want to use unsafe pointers in C#, but something alternate to it.
Thanks!
You should replace the struct with an array of 5 elements.
If you want to, you can wrap the array in a class with five properties.
edit...
When you say 'Wrap,' it generally means to write properties in a class that set or get the value of either a single variable, an array element, or a member of another class whose instance lives inside your class (the usual usage here = 'wrap an object'). Very useful for separating concerns and joining functionality of multiple objects. Technically, all simple properties just 'wrap' their private member variables.
Sample per comment:
class test
{
int[] e = new int[5];
public void Hello(int index)
{
for (int i = 0; i <= 4; i++) {
// will always happen if index != 0
if (i + index > 4) {
MsgBox("Original code would have overwritten memory. .Net will now blow up.");
}
e[i + index] = i;
}
}
public int e1 {
get { return e[0]; }
set { e[0] = value; }
}
public int e2 {
get { return e[1]; }
set { e[1] = value; }
}
//' ETC etc etc with e3-e5 ...
}
The problem with the C code is that if index is greater than 0 it runs off the end of the abc struct, thus overwriting random memory. This is exactly why C#, a safer language, does not allow these sorts of things. The way I'd implement your code in C# would be:
struct abc
{
public int[] e;
}
void Hello(ref abc a, int index)
{
a.e = new int[5];
for (int i = 0; i < 5; ++i)
a.e[index + i] = i;
}
Note that if index > 0, you'll get an out of bounds exception instead of possibly silent memory overwriting as you would in the C snippet.
The thinking behind the C codes is an ill fit for C#. The C code is based on the assumption that the fields of the struct will be placed sequentially in memory in the order defined the fields are defined in.
The above looks like either homework or a contrived example. Without knowing the real intent it's hard to give a concrete example in C#.
other examples here suggest changing the data structure but if you can't/don't want to do that, you can use reflection combined with an array of objects of the struct type to accomplish the same result as above.
void Hello(abc currentObj){
var fields = typeof(abc).GetFields();
for(var i = 0;i<fields.Length;i++){
fields[i].SetValue(currentObj,i);
}
}
Is there a way to create c++ style pointer in c#? I need this to set an int in several places when I don't know which int it is.
Like in c++ I would do:
int *i;
if(cond0) i = &someint;
if(cond1) i = &otherint;
if(cond2) i = &thirdint;
if(cond3) *i = someval;
if(cond4) *i = otherval;
if(cond5) *i = thirdval;
If I do this in c# style I will need 9 ifs and my program has much more conditions so its not feasible.
I thought of make some sort of value like:
int val;
if(cond3) val = someval;
if(cond4) val = otherval;
if(cond5) val = thirdval;
if(cond0) someint = val;
if(cond1) otherint = val;
if(cond2) thirdint = val;
but it's not possible because cond3, 4 and 5 are scattered along the program.
It is, but you have to wrap any code that does it in an unsafe block.
Alternatively, if this is happening in a method then you might be able to use the 'ref' keyword to pass a parameter in by reference.
Both of these options really constrain the solution to method boundaries. If you're dealing with anything more scattered than that, in C# it's probably better to try and find ways to reorganize your code to use less global state instead.
Yes, there is a type called IntPtr which I use for Windows handles.
Here's an example of C# pointers that illustrates both their declaration and how to wrap them in an unsafe block
Also, see the C# Programming Guide - Pointer Types
I'm not sure if you provided enough information in your question to give a correct answer, but one possible solution is to set the values in a function using ref parameters.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var i = 1;
var someint = 2;
var otherint = 3;
var thirdint = 4;
Console.WriteLine("i: {0}\nsomeint: {1}\notherint: {2}\nthirdint: {3}", i, someint, otherint, thirdint);
SetInts(true, false, false, false, false, false, ref i, ref someint, ref otherint, ref thirdint);
Console.WriteLine("i: {0}\nsomeint: {1}\notherint: {2}\nthirdint: {3}", i, someint, otherint, thirdint);
Console.ReadKey();
}
static void SetInts(bool cond0, bool cond1, bool cond2, bool cond3, bool cond4, bool cond5, ref int i, ref int someint, ref int otherint, ref int thirdint)
{
if (cond0) i = someint;
if (cond1) i = otherint;
if (cond2) i = thirdint;
if (cond3) i = someint;
if (cond4) i = otherint;
if (cond5) i = thirdint;
}
}
I wonder if there's any way something like this would be possible for value types...
public static class ExtensionMethods {
public static void SetTo(this Boolean source, params Boolean[] bools) {
for (int i = 0; i < bools.Length; i++) {
bools[i] = source;
}
}
}
then this would be possible:
Boolean a = true, b, c = true, d = true, e;
b.SetTo(a, c, d, e);
Of course, this does not work because the bools are a value type so they are passed into the function as a value, not as a reference.
Other than wrapping the value types into reference types (by creating another class), is there any way to pass a variable into function by the reference (ref) while using params modifier?
This is not possible. To explain why, first read my essay on why it is that we optimize deallocation of local variables of value type by putting them on the stack:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100224071314/http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2009/05/04/the-stack-is-an-implementation-detail-part-two.aspx
Now that you understand that, it should be clear why you cannot store a "ref bool" in an array. If you could, then you could have an array which survives longer than the stack variable being referenced. We have two choices: either allow this, and produce programs which crash and die horribly if you get it wrong -- this is the choice made by the designers of C. Or, disallow it, and have a system which is less flexible but more safe. We chose the latter.
But let's think about this a little deeper. If what you want is to pass around "thing which allows me to set a variable", we have that. That's just a delegate:
static void DoStuff<T>(this T thing, params Action<T>[] actions)
{
foreach(var action in actions) action(thing);
}
...
bool b = whatever;
b.DoStuff(x=>{q = x;}, x=>{r = x;} );
Make sense?
There isn't really a way. You could do something like this:
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
BooleanWrapper a = true, b = true, c = true, d = true, e = new BooleanWrapper();
b.SetTo(a, c, d, e);
}
public static void SetTo(this BooleanWrapper sourceWrapper, params BooleanWrapper[] wrappers)
{
foreach (var w in wrappers)
w.Value = sourceWrapper.Value;
}
public class BooleanWrapper
{
public BooleanWrapper() { }
public BooleanWrapper(Boolean value)
{
Value = value;
}
public Boolean Value { get; set; }
public static implicit operator BooleanWrapper(Boolean value)
{
return new BooleanWrapper(value);
}
}
But then again how is that any better than just doing this:
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
Boolean[] bools = new Boolean[5];
bools.SetTo(bools[1]); // Note I changed the order of arguments. I think this makes more sense.
}
public static void SetTo(this Boolean[] bools, Boolean value)
{
for(int i = 0; i < bools.Length; i++)
bools[i] = value;
}
After all, an array is a sequence of variables. If you need something that behaves like a sequence of variables, use an array.
Unfortunately the community of Java, and now .NET, developers decided that less flexibility in the name of "safety" is the preferred solution, and to achieve the same result with less lines of code you have to opt for extraordinary complexity (all those class structures, delegates, etc.).
In Delphi I could simply do something like this:
var
a: integer; f: double; n: integer;
sscanf(fmtstr, valuestr, [#a, #f, #n]);
//<-- "sscanf" is a function I wrote myself that takes an open array of pointers.
In C# You would have to do:
int a; double f; int n;
object [] o = new object[];
sscanf(fmtstr, valuestr, ref o);
a = o[0];
f = o[1];
n = o[2];
That's 5 lines of code to do what I could do in 1 line of Delphi code. I think there is a formula somewhere that the likelihood of bugs in code increases geometrically with the number of lines of code; so if you have 20 lines of code you're code is 4 times more likely to have bugs than if you have 10.
Of course, you can decrease your # lines of code by using the delegate with all those weird angle brackets and strange syntax, but I would think that's also a haven for bugs.
Here is some interesting solution:
public delegate RecursionRefFunc<T> RecursionRefFunc<T>(ref T arg);
public static RecursionRefFunc<T> Boo<T>(ref T input)
{
Console.WriteLine(input); // Work in here
return Boo;
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
int x1 = 1, x2 = 2, x3 = 3, x4 = 4, x5 = 5;
Boo(ref x1)(ref x2)(ref x3)(ref x4)(ref x5);
}
// Output: //
// 1
// 2
// 3
// 4
// 5
Delegate can declare in recursion.
Return a function outside and call again.
And you will be killed by the code reviewer.
Advertisement OW<: CWKSC/MyLib_Csharp
This would not be possible even if bools were reference types. While a class is a reference type, the variable in the Boolean[] is still a value, it's just that the value is a reference. Assigning the value of the reference just changes the value of that particular variable. The concept of an array of ref variables doesn't make sense (as arrays are, by their nature, a series of values).