| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
How Do I Make This Hard to Misuse?How Do I Make This Hard to Misuse?Posted Apr 1, 2008 5:41 UTC (Tue) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246)Parent article: How Do I Make This Hard to Misuse?
One of my favorite C APIs to love to hate: fputc(int, FILE *) and fgets(char *, int, FILE *) Why is the file pointer the last argument?! As Rusty pointed out, "context" arguments such as handles (FILE * in this case) idiomatically belong at the front, just like in fprintf(FILE *, const char *, ...).
(Log in to post comments)
How Do I Make This Hard to Misuse? Posted Apr 1, 2008 10:21 UTC (Tue) by xbobx (subscriber, #51363) [Link] > Why is the file pointer the last argument?! That would probably be an optimization. C function calling convention is that arguments are pushed onto the stack in reverse order, so with this function the FILE pointer is pushed first. Then the caller is free to manipulate the stack without touching the FILE pointer, and possibly call these functions multiple times. Otherwise, code that repeatedly gets input from/outputs to stdout (e.g., *everything*, at least when libc was designed) has to push/pop the stdout FILE ptr around _every_ call to these functions. Not that this would ever be noticeable on modern hardware, just saying...
How Do I Make This Hard to Misuse? Posted Apr 1, 2008 11:14 UTC (Tue) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link] Sounds plausible (and quaint!), but I'm not sure I'm following the scenario. I'm interpreting "reverse order" as "left most argument pushed last." So, suppose putchar(int c) is a wrapper around fputc(int c, FILE *f):
int putchar(int c)
{
return fputc(c, stdout);
}
So, in pseudo-code, the resultant assembly ought to look roughly like this (assuming tail-call optimization):
POP 'c' into a register
PUSH 'stdout'
PUSH 'c' back on stack
JUMP to fputc and let it return for us.
It seems like if arguments went in reverse order, then adding the FILE * argument at the beginning would be the optimization:
PUSH 'stdout'
JUMP to fputc and let it return for us
I must be missing something.
How Do I Make This Hard to Misuse? Posted Apr 1, 2008 17:22 UTC (Tue) by vmole (guest, #111) [Link] My guess is that it's even simpler than that: we've got a function that puts a character to stdout, and we need one that puts to an arbitrary FILE *, so we'll add an argument. Many years ago, I worked on a Data General. The COPY and MOVE commands took, as a first argument, the destination file or directory. This made some sort of sense from an implementation point of view, but, as the TA warned at the time, "Sooner or later *all* of you are going to overwrite a source file." I think we all did.
How Do I Make This Hard to Misuse? Posted Apr 7, 2008 7:49 UTC (Mon) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458) [Link] Kind of how the ln command in unix works, then? I've always found this massively unintuitive.
How Do I Make This Hard to Misuse? Posted Apr 7, 2008 14:38 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] So do I, but I think that's because of overexposure to C, where that sort of thing is helpfully always the other way around. If you think about it, ln(1) is perfectly consistent with cp(1): it creates or updates (for directories) the last thing you list.
How Do I Make This Hard to Misuse? Posted Apr 7, 2008 17:17 UTC (Mon) by vmole (guest, #111) [Link] It's consistent, kinda. The problem comes when describing: "cp foo bar" translates as "copy _foo_ to _bar_" okay, but the obvious translation of "ln foo bar" to "link _foo_ to _bar_" doesn't; the latter seems to say _bar_ is the original, at least to my taste. You have to process it as "create a link to _foo_ named _bar_". Or just memorize it. :-)
How Do I Make This Hard to Misuse? Posted Apr 8, 2008 8:24 UTC (Tue) by IkeTo (subscriber, #2122) [Link] > but the obvious translation of "ln foo bar" to "link _foo_ to _bar_" doesn't I see this problem as an inaccuracy of the translation "link _foo_ to _bar_". This seems to imply that both _foo_ and _bar_ are pre-existing, and somehow a "link" is created between them as a result of running the command. Obviously not what is done by "ln". It is instead to "build a link to _foo_ called _bar_". The cp is to "make a copy of _foo_ called _bar_". Pretty consistent to me.
How Do I Make This Hard to Misuse? Posted Apr 8, 2008 12:13 UTC (Tue) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link] Although, since the final argument can be a directory, perhaps the best connector for both is "at": Make a copy of foo _at_ bar Make a link to foo _at_ bar Or in the plural case: Make copies of foo, bar, baz, quux _at_ dest Make links to foo, bar, baz, quux _at_ dest
How Do I Make This Hard to Misuse? Posted Apr 9, 2008 3:06 UTC (Wed) by roelofs (subscriber, #2599) [Link] Also keep in mind that the target for ln is optional. Thus:
ln -s foo/bar . ln -s foo/bar ...are equivalent. Sadly, cp foo/bar doesn't quite work. Greg
How Do I Make This Hard to Misuse? Posted Apr 9, 2008 3:33 UTC (Wed) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link] That aspect of 'cp' always drove me nuts, probably because I learned MS-DOS first. I've found myself tempted to write a wrapper around 'cp' to make that form work. I won't, though, only because I know it'll wreak havoc when I go to use someone else's account for whatever reason. (e.g. to show them how to do something.)
How Do I Make This Hard to Misuse? Posted Apr 1, 2008 18:00 UTC (Tue) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] Possibly push the file handle, push the char, call, replace the char at top of stack, call, repeat. But I am just guessing, and hate working on code like that. I spent two years dealing with the memory constraints that made such code tempting, and despised it.
How Do I Make This Hard to Misuse? Posted Apr 2, 2008 4:27 UTC (Wed) by xbobx (subscriber, #51363) [Link] True, for that specific case it is better the other way around. But suppose you have a function such as:
void print_strings(FILE *stream, int num_strings, const char **list) {
int i;
for (i = 0; i < num_strings; i++) {
fputs(list[i], stream);
}
}
In this case, the assembly for this function will push stream once, then just push/pop n pointers to strings onto the stack and call fputs to print all of the strings. One could imagine that this would be useful when, say, implementing fprintf or other similar higher-level functions which all output to the same FILE *.
How Do I Make This Hard to Misuse? Posted Apr 2, 2008 4:36 UTC (Wed) by jzbiciak (✭ supporter ✭, #5246) [Link] See? I knew I was missing something. Thanks to you and felixfix both, since you are both describing the same particular optimization. Cute, in an ugly, quaint way. :-D I'm certain I'm guilty of far worse horrors in my 2 decades of assembly programming. This optimization never occurred to me since I've always managed to pass arguments in registers. (An odd fluke of history, that. I've written whole-program assembly where I control all the conventions, C with inline-asm only (no function calls from asm) on machines with stack-based calling conventions, and C callable asm on machines with register based calling conventions.)
|
|
||||||||||||