compile time assertions in C

C has a facility for checking dynamic assertions at run-time. It's inside <assert.h> and its called assert. Now assert is a macro, so why isn't it called ASSERT? I don't know. Prior art no doubt. Anyway, assert is a dynamic runtime feature, you can only use it inside functions. 

/* not inside a function, won't compile :-( */
assert(sizeof(int) * CHAR_BIT >= 32);

That's a pity because it would be nice if I could get the compiler to check things like this automatically at compile time. I've occasionally seen an attempt at a compile-time check like this... 

#if sizeof(int) * CHAR_BIT < 32
#error People of Earth. Your attention please...
#endif

But this doesn't work. The C preprocessor is a glorified text reformatter: it knows practically nothing about C. However, there is a way to write this as a compile time assertion (and moving any error trap to an earlier phase is a Good Thing)

{ yourself }

#define COMPILE_TIME_ASSERT(expr)   \
    char constraint[expr]

COMPILE_TIME_ASSERT(sizeof(int) * CHAR_BIT >= 32);

What's is going on here? Well, the example preprocesses to... 

char constraint[sizeof(int) * CHAR_BIT >= 32];

If the expression is true, (an int is at least 32 bits), the expression will have a value of one, and constraint will be an array of one char. If the assertion is false, (an int is less than 32 bits), the expression will have a value of zero, and constraint will be an empty array. That's illegal, and you'll get a compile time error. Viola, a compile time assertion :-) You can use it inside and outside a function but you can't use it twice in the same function, as you end up with a duplicate definition. To solve that problem you could resort to some convoluted macro trickery: 

#define COMPILE_TIME_ASSERT(expr)       char UNIQUE_NAME[expr]
#define UNIQUE_NAME                     MAKE_NAME(__LINE__)
#define MAKE_NAME(line)                 MAKE_NAME2(line)
#define MAKE_NAME2(line)                constraint_ ## line

But this is pretty horrible. Also, you will probably get warnings about unused variables. Take a step back for a moment and think about why it works at all. It's because you have to specify the size of an array as a compile time constant. The formal grammar of a direct-declarator tells you this. Let's look at some bits of grammar more closely:

Constrained arrays

 direct-declarator:
  identifier
  ( declarator )
  direct-declarator [ constant-expression opt ]
  direct-declarator ( parameter-type-list )
  direct-declarator ( identifier-list opt )

I just piggy backed on this, using the constraint that the value of the constant expression cannot (in this context) be zero. A natural question (to the curious) is are there other parts of the formal grammar that require a constant expression. The answer, of course, is yes.

Constrained enums

 enumerator:
  enumeration-constant
  enumeration-constant = constant-expression

However, I can't use this because there are no useful constraints in this context.

Constrained bit-fields

 struct-declarator:
  declarator
  declarator opt : constant-expression

Reading the constraints of a bit field I see that if the width of a bit-field is zero the declaration cannot have a declarator. In other words this is legal... 

 struct x { unsigned int : 0; };

but this is not... 

 struct x { unsigned int bf : 0; };

This suggests another way to create a compile time assertion 

#define COMPILE_TIME_ASSERT(expr)   \
    struct x { unsigned int bf : expr; }

COMPILE_TIME_ASSERT(sizeof(int) * CHAR_BIT >= 32);

Trying this we again get duplicate definitions, not of a variable this time, but of the type struct x. However we can fix this by creating an anonymous struct: 

#define COMPILE_TIME_ASSERT(expr)   \
    struct { unsigned int bf : expr; }

This works. However, now you'll probably get warnings about the unused untagged struct.

There is one last bit of grammar that uses a constant-expression.

Constrained switch

 labelled-statement:
  identifier : statement
  case constant-expression : statement
  default : statement

It's well known that you can't have two case labels with the same constant. The following will not compile... 

switch (0)
{
case 0:
case 0:;
}
So, here's yet another way to create a compile time assertion. This time we don't create a dummy variable, or a dummy type, but a dummy statement. A dummy switch statement: 
#define COMPILE_TIME_ASSERT(pred)       \
    switch(0){case 0:case pred:;}

COMPILE_TIME_ASSERT(sizeof(int) * CHAR_BIT >= 32);

If pred evaluates to true (i.e., 1) then the case labels will be 0 and 1. Different; Ok. If pred evaluates to false (i.e., 0) then the case labels will be 0 and 0. The same; Compile time error. Viola. However, a switch statement cannot exist in the global scope. So the last piece of the puzzle is to put the compile time assertions inside a function. 

#include <limits.h>

#define COMPILE_TIME_ASSERT(pred)            \  
    switch(0){case 0:case pred:;}

#define ASSERT_MIN_BITSIZE(type, size)       \
    COMPILE_TIME_ASSERT(sizeof(type) * CHAR_BIT >= size)

#define ASSERT_EXACT_BITSIZE(type, size)     \
    COMPILE_TIME_ASSERT(sizeof(type) * CHAR_BIT == size)

void compile_time_assertions(void)
{
    ASSERT_MIN_BITSIZE(char,  8);
    ASSERT_MIN_BITSIZE(int,  16);
    ASSERT_EXACT_BITSIZE(long, 32);
}
No comments:

C# struct/class differences

Events are locked?

Events declared in a class have their += and -= access automatically locked via a lock(this) to make them thread safe (static events are locked on the typeof the class). Events declared in a struct do not have their += and -= access automatically locked. A lock(this) for a struct would not work since you can only lock on a reference type expression.

Exist on stack or heap?

Value type local instances are allocated on the stack. Reference type local instances are allocated on the heap.

Can cause garbage collection?

Creating a struct instance cannot cause a garbage collection (unless the constructor directly or indirectly creates a reference type instance) whereas creating a reference type instance can cause garbage collection.

Meaning of this?

In a class, this is classified as a value, and thus cannot appear on the left hand side of an assignment, or be used as a ref/out parameter. For example: 

class Indirect
{
    //...
    public void Method(Indirect that)
    {
        RefParameter(ref this); // compile-time error
        OutParameter(out this); // compile-time error
        this = that;            // compile-time error
    }
    //...
}
In a struct, this is classified as an out parameter in a constructor and as a ref parameter in all other function members. Thus it is possible to modify the entire structure by assigning to this or passing this as a ref/out parameter. For example: 
struct Direct
{
    //...
    public void Reassign(Direct that)
    {
        RefParameter(ref this); // compiles ok
        OutParameter(out this); // compiles ok
        this = that;            // compiles ok
    }
    //...
}
Furthermore, you can reassign a whole struct even when the struct contains readonly fields! 
struct Direct
{
    public Direct(int value)
    {
        Field = value;
    }

    public void Reassign(Direct that)
    {
        RefParameter(ref this); // compiles ok
        OutParameter(out this); // compiles ok
        this = that;            // compiles ok
    }

    public readonly int Field;
}

class Show
{
    static void Main()
    {
        Direct s = new Direct(42);
        Console.WriteLine(s.Field); // writes 42
        s.Reassign(new Direct(24));
        Console.WriteLine(s.Field); // writes 24
    }
}
Note however that when you call a method on a readonly value-type field, the method call is made on a copy of the field. 
struct Direct
{
    // as above
}

class Caller
{
    public void Method()
    {
        Console.WriteLine(d.Field); // writes 42
        d.Reassign(new Direct(24));
        Console.WriteLine(d.Field); // writes 42!
    }

    private readonly Direct d = new Direct(42);
}

class Show
{
    static void Main()
    {
        Caller c = new Caller();
        c.Method();
    }
}

Always have a default constructor?

A struct always has a built-in public default constructor. 

class DefaultConstructor
{
    static void Eg()
    {
          Direct   yes = new   Direct(); // always compiles ok
        InDirect maybe = new InDirect(); // compiles if c'tor exists and is accessible
        //...
    }
}
This means that a struct is always instantiable whereas a class might not be since all its constructors could be private. 
class NonInstantiable
{
    private NonInstantiable() // ok
    {
    }
}

struct Direct
{
    private Direct() // compile-time error
    {
    }
}

Default construction triggers static constructor?

A structs static constructor is not triggered by calling the structs default constructor. It is for a class. 

struct Direct
{
    static Direct()
    {
        Console.WriteLine("This is not written");
    }
}

class NotTriggered
{
    static void Main()
    {
        Direct local = new Direct();
    }
}

Can be null?

A struct instance cannot be null. 

class Nullness
{
    static void Eg(Direct s, Indirect c)
    {
        if (s == null) ... // compile-time error
        if (c == null) ... // compiles ok
    }
}

Use with the as operator?

A struct type cannot be the right hand side operand of the as operator. 

class Fragment
{
    static void Eg(Direct s, Indirect c)
    {
          Direct  no = s as   Direct; // compile-time error
        InDirect yes = c as InDirect; // compiles ok
        //...
    }
}

Can be locked?

A struct type expression cannot be the operand of a lock statement. 

class LockStatement
{
    static void Eg(Direct s, InDirect c)
    {
        lock(s) { ... } // compile-time error
        lock(c) { ... } // compiles ok
    }
}

Can have a destructor?

A struct cannot have a destructor. A destructor is just an override of object.Finalize in disguise, and structs, being value types, are not subject to garbage collection. 

struct Direct
{
    ~Direct() {} // compile-time error
}
class InDirect
{
    ~InDirect() {} // compiles ok
}

And the CIL for ~Indirect() looks like this: 

.method family hidebysig virtual instance void
        Finalize() cil managed
{
  // ...
} // end of method Indirect::Finalize

Default field layout?

The default [StructLayout] attribute (which lives in the System.Runtime.InteropServices namespace) for a struct is LayoutKind.Sequential whereas the default StructLayout for a class is LayoutKind.Auto. (And yes, despite its name you can tag a class with the StructLayout attribute.) In other words the CIL for this: 

public struct Direct
{
    //...
}

looks like this: 

.class public sequential ansi sealed beforefieldinit Direct
       extends [mscorlib]System.ValueType
{
  //...
}

whereas the CIL for this: 

public sealed class InDirect
{
    //...
}

looks like this: 

.class public auto ansi sealed beforefieldinit Indirect
       extends [mscorlib]System.Object
{
    //...
}

Can be a volatile field?

You can't declare a user-defined struct type as a volatile field but you can declare a user-defined class type as a volatile field. 

class Bad
{
    private volatile Direct field; // compile-time error
}
class Good
{
    private volatile Indirect field; // compiles ok
}

Can have synchronized methods?

You can't use the [MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.Synchronized)] attribute on methods of a struct type (if you call the method you get a runtime TypeLoadException) whereas you can use the [MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.Synchronized)] attribute on methods of a class type. 

using System.Runtime.CompilerServices;

class Indirect
{
    [MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.Synchronized)] // compiles and runs ok
    public void Method()
    {
        //...
    }
}

struct Direct
{
    [MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.Synchronized)] // compiles ok, runtime TypeLoadException
    public void Method()
    {
        //...
    }
}

Can be pointed to?

Clause 25.2 of the C# standard defines an unmanaged type as any type that isn't a reference type and doesn't contain reference-type fields at any level of nesting. That is, one of the following:

  • Any simple value type (11.1.3, eg byte, int, long, double, bool, etc).
  • Any enum type.
  • Any pointer type.
  • Any user-defined struct-type that contains fields of unmanaged types only.
You can never take the address of a instance of a type that is not unmanaged (a fixed variable 25.3). 
class Bad
{
    static void Main()
    {
        Indirect variable = new Indirect();
        unsafe
        {
            fixed(Indirect * ptr = &variable) // compile-time error
            {
                //...
            }
        }
    }
}
If you want to fix an unmanaged instance you have to do so by fixing it through an unmanaged field. For example: 
class Indirect
{
    public int fixHandle;
}
class Bad
{
    static void Main()
    {
        Indirect variable = new Indirect();
        unsafe
        {
            fixed(int * ptr = &variable.fixHandle) // compiles ok
            {
                //...
            }
        }
    }
}
In contrast, you can (nearly) always take the address of an unmanaged instance. 
struct Direct
{
    // no reference fields at any level of nesting
}
class SimpleCase
{
    static void Main()
    {
        Direct variable = new Direct();
        unsafe
        {
            Direct * ptr = &variable; // compiles ok
            //...       
        }
    }
}
However, you have to take the address inside a fixed statement if the variable is moveable (subject to relocation by the garbage collector, see 25.3 and example above). Also, you can never take the address of a volatile field.

So, in summary, you can never create a pointer to a class type but you sometimes create a pointer to a struct type.

Can be stackalloc'd?

You can only use stackalloc on unmanaged types. Hence you can never use stackalloc on class types. For example: 

class Indirect
{
    //...
}
class Bad
{
    static void Main()
    {
        unsafe
        {
            Indirect * array = stackalloc Indirect[42]; // compile-time error
            //...
        }
    }
}
Where as you can use stackalloc on struct types that are unmanaged. For example: 
struct Direct
{
    // no reference fields at any level of nesting
}
class Good
{
    static void Main()
    {
        unsafe
        {
            Direct * array = stackalloc Direct[42]; // compiles ok
            //...
        }
    }
}

Can be sizeof'd?

You can only use sizeof on unmanaged types. Hence you can never use sizeof on class types. For example: 

class Indirect
{
    //...
}
class Bad
{
    static void Main()
    {
        unsafe
        {
            int size = sizeof(Indirect); // compile-time error
            //...
        }
    }
}
Where as you can use sizeof on struct types that are unmanaged. For example: 
struct Direct
{
    // no reference fields at any level of nesting
}
class Good
{
    static void Main()
    {
        unsafe
        {
            int size = sizeof(Direct); // compiles ok
            //...
        }
    }
}

How to initialize fields?

The fields of a class have a default initialization to zero/false/null. The fields of a struct have no default value. 

struct Direct
{
    public int Field;
}

class Indirect
{
    public Indirect()
    {
    }
    //...
    public int Field;
}

class Defaults
{
    static void Main()
    {
        Direct s;
        Console.WriteLine(s.Field);  // compile-time error

        Indirect c = new Indirect();
        Console.WriteLine(c.Field); // compiles ok
    }
}

You can initialize fields in a class at their point of declaration. For example: 

class Indirect
{
    //...
    private int field = 42;
}
You can't do this for fields in a struct. For example: 
struct Direct
{
    //...
    private int field = 42; // compile-time error
}
Fields in a struct have to be initialized in a constructor. For example: 
struct Direct
{
    public Direct(int value)
    {
        field = value;
    }
    //...
    private int field; // compiles ok
}
Also, the definite assignment rules of a struct are tracked on an individual field basis. This means you can bypass initialization and "assign" the fields of a struct one a time. For example: 
struct Direct
{
    public int X, Y;
}
class Example
{
    static void Main()
    {
        Direct d;
        d.X = 42;
        Console.WriteLine(d.X); // compiles ok
        Console.WriteLine(d.Y); // compile-time error
    }
}

Inheritance differences?

  • a struct is implicitly sealed, a class isn't.
  • a struct can't be abstract, a class can.
  • a struct can't call : base() in its constructor whereas a class with no explicit base class can.
  • a struct can't extend another class, a class can.
  • a struct can't declare protected members (eg fields, nested types) a class can.
  • a struct can't declare abstract function members, an abstract class can.
  • a struct can't declare virtual function members, a class can.
  • a struct can't declare sealed function members, a class can.
  • a struct can't declare override function members, a class can. The one exception to this rule is that a struct can override the virtual methods of System.Object, viz, Equals(), and GetHashCode(), and ToString().

Equals behavior?

classes inherit Object.Equals which implements identity equality whereas structs inherit ValueType.Equals which implements value equality. 

using System.Diagnostics;

struct Direct
{
    public Direct(int value)
    {
        field = value;
    }
    private int field;
}

class Indirect
{
    public Indirect(int value)
    {
        field = value;
    }
    private int field;
}

class EqualsBehavior
{
    static void Main()
    {
        Direct s1 = new Direct(42);
        Direct s2 = new Direct(42);

        Indirect c1 = new Indirect(42);
        Indirect c2 = new Indirect(42);

        bool structEquality = s1.Equals(s2);
        bool classIdentity  = !c1.Equals(c2);

        Debug.Assert(structEquality);
        Debug.Assert(classIdentity);

    }
}
Overriding Equals for structs should be faster because it can avoid reflection and boxing. 
struct Direct
{
    public Direct(int value)
    {
        field = value;
    }

    public override bool Equals(object other)
    {
        return other is Direct && Equals((Direct)other);
    }

    public static bool operator==(Direct lhs, Direct rhs)
    {
        return lhs.Equals(rhs);
    }

    //...    

    private bool Equals(Direct other)
    {
        return field == other.field;
    }

    private int field;
}
No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)