Is there any reason to use Qt standard function wrappers like qstrncpy instead of strncpy?
I could not find any hint in documentation. And I'm curious if there is any functional difference. It looks like making code dependent on Qt, even in not mandatory places.
I found this: Qt wrapper for C libraries
But it doesn't answer my question.
These methods are part of Qt's efforts for platform-independence. Qt tries to hide platform differences and use the best each platform has to offer, replicating that functionality on platforms where it is not available. Here is what the documentation of qstrncpy has to say:
A safe strncpy() function.
Copies at most len bytes from src (stopping at len or the terminating '\0' whichever comes first) into dst and returns a pointer to dst. Guarantees that dst is '\0'-terminated. If src or dst is nullptr, returns nullptr immediately.
[…]
Note: When compiling with Visual C++ compiler version 14.00 (Visual C++ 2005) or later, internally the function strncpy_s will be used.
So qstrncpy is safer than strncpy.
The Qt wrappers for these functions are safer than the standard ones because they guarantee the destination string will always be null-terminated. strncpy() does not guarantee this.
In C11, strncpy_s() and other _s() suffixed functions were added as safe string functions. However, they are not available in any C++ standard, they are C-only. The Qt wrappers fix this.
Related
What does Qt Quick Compiler do exactly? My understanding was that it "compiles" QML/JS into C++ and integrates this into the final binary/executable. So, there is no JIT compilation or any other JS-related things during runtime.
However, I saw somewhere an article that claimed that it's not like this and actually it only "bundles" QML/JS into final binary/executable, but there is still some QML/JS-related overhead during runtime.
At the documentation page there is this explanation:
.qml files as well as accompanying .js files can be translated into
intermediate C++ source code. After compilation with a traditional
compiler, the code is linked into the application binary.
What is this "intermediate C++ source code"? Why not just "C++ source code"? That confuses me, but the last statement kinda promises that yes, it is a C++ code, and after compiling it with C++ compiler you will have a binary/executable without any additional compiling/interpretation during runtime.
Is it how it actually is?
The code is of an intermediate nature because it doesn't map Javascript directly to C++. E.g. var i = 1, j = 2, k = i+j is not translated to the C++ equivalent double i = 1., j = 2., k = i+j. Instead, the code is translated to a series of operations that directly manipulate the state of the JS virtual machine. JS semantics are not something you can get for free from C++: there will be runtime costs no matter how you implement it. There is no additional compiling nor interpretation, but the virtual machine that implements the JS state still has to exist.
That's not an overhead easy to get rid of without emitting a lot mostly dead code to cover all contexts in which a given piece of code might run, or doing just-in-time compilation that you wanted to avoid. That's the primary problem with JavaScript: its semantics are such that it's generally not possible to translate it to typical imperative statically typed code that gives rise to "standard" machine code.
Your question already contains the answer.
It compiles the code into C++, that is of intermediate nature as it is not enough to have C++-Code. You need binaries. So after the compilation to C++, the files are then compiled into binaries. Those are then linked.
The statement only says: We do not compile to binary, but to C++ instead. You need to compile it into a binary with your a C++-Compiler of your choice.
The bundeling happens, if you only put it into the resources (qrc-file). Putting it into the resources does not imply that you use the compiler.
Then there is the JIT compiler, that might (on supported platforms) do a Just-in-Time-Compilation. More on this here
as I understood, the OpenCL uses a modified C language (by adding some keywords like __global) as the general purpose for defining kernel function. And now I am doing a front-end inside F# language, which has a code quotation feature that can do meta programming (you can think it as some kind of reflection tech). So I would like to know if there is a general binary intermediate representation for the kernel instead of C source file.
I know that CUDA supports LLVM IR for the binary intermediate representation, so we can create kernel programmatically, and I want to do the same thing with OpenCL. But the document says that the binary format is not specified, each implementation can use their own binary format. So is there any general purpose IR which can be generated by program and can also run with NVIDIA, AMD, Intel implementation of OpenCL?
Thansk.
No, not yet. Khronos is working on SPIR (the spec is still provisional), which would hopefully become this. As far as I can tell, none of the major implementations support it yet. Unless you want to bet your project on its success and possibly delay your project for a year or two, you should probably start with generating code in the C dialect.
I'm searching for a simple library for creating GUI that can have:
a portable codebase across different compilers and OS
can be easily extended to a new platform if that platform it's not natively supported
are real library and not just a collection of #define, tools and other un-portable and non-standard things.
So far the "best" match is QT that is just the opposite of each one of this 3 points, especially the 3rd one (moc compiler and #defines ... ).
I also do not need data structures and 10000 extra functions, i just need to code a portable GUI, hipotetically i don't even need a signal slot library included because I can handle signals with third part libraries.
If there is no such lib available can you point me to a resource where I can learn about the OS specific basics about Widgets and Windows ?
I never used it, but I would suggest looking into IUP
From what I read this would fit the bill quite well. The project is also quite active. Though it is probably not too pretty.
In QT we can connect signals and slots using the following simple syntax:
connect(pObject1, signal1, pObject2, slot2)
For instance, one can write something like:
A a;
B b;
connect(&a, SIGNAL(valueChanged(int)), &a, SLOT(setValue(int)));
With Boost::Signal the syntax we would write it this way:
A a;
B b;
a.valueChanged.connect(boost::bind(&B::SetValue, &b, _1))
IMHO, the boost signal's syntax is more complicated. Is there a way to make the Boost::Signal's syntax more QT like.
The thing with Qt is that it goes through a code generation phase during compilation, that Boost can't do. That means that Qt can do some very clever syntactic things that can't be copied without going through a similar process.
To quote Wikipedia:
Known as the moc, this is a tool that is run on the sources of a Qt program. It interprets certain macros from the C++ code as annotations, and uses them to generate additional C++ code with "Meta Information" about the classes used in the program. This meta information is used by Qt to provide programming features not available natively in C++: the signal/slot system, introspection and asynchronous function calls.
(I can't get the link to work, but it's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_(framework))
Edit: I think the Wikipedia quote is quite clear that the signal/slot system is implemented using the moc. I doubt very much that there's any way to use the same syntax without using a similar system.
I search for a programming language for which a compiler exists and that supports self modifying code. I’ve heared that Lisp supports these features, but I was wondering if there is a more C/C++/D-Like language with these features.
To clarify what I mean:
I want to be able to have in some way access to the programms code at runtime and apply any kind of changes to it, that is, removing commands, adding commands, changing them.
As if i had the AstTree of my programm. Of course i can’t have that tree in a compiled language, so it must be done different. The compile would need to translate the self-modifying commands into their binary equivalent modifications so they would work in runtime with the compiled code.
I don’t want to be dependent on an VM, thats what i meant with compiled :)
Probably there is a reason Lisp is like it is? Lisp was designed to program other languages and to compute with symbolic representations of code and data. The boundary between code and data is no longer there. This influences the design AND the implementation of a programming language.
Lisp has got its syntactical features to generate new code, translate that code and execute it. Thus pre-parsed code is also using the same data structures (symbols, lists, numbers, characters, ...) that are used for other programs, too.
Lisp knows its data at runtime - you can query everything for its type or class. Classes are objects themselves, as are functions. So these elements of the programming language and the programs also are first-class objects, they can be manipulated as such. Dynamic language has nothing to do with 'dynamic typing'.
'Dynamic language' means that the elements of the programming language (for example via meta classes and the meta-object protocol) and the program (its classes, functions, methods, slots, inheritance, ...) can be looked at runtime and can be modified at runtime.
Probably the more of these features you add to a language, the more it will look like Lisp. Since Lisp is pretty much the local maximum of a simple, dynamic, programmable programming language. If you want some of these features, then you might want to think which features of your other program language you have to give up or are willing to give up. For example for a simple code-as-data language, the whole C syntax model might not be practical.
So C-like and 'dynamic language' might not really be a good fit - the syntax is one part of the whole picture. But even the C syntax model limits us how easy we can work with a dynamic language.
C# has always allowed for self-modifying code.
C# 1 allowed you to essentially create and compile code on the fly.
C# 3 added "expression trees", which offered a limited way to dynamically generate code using an object model and abstract syntax trees.
C# 4 builds on that by incorporating support for the "Dynamic Language Runtime". This is probably as close as you are going to get to LISP-like capabilities on the .NET platform in a compiled language.
You might want to consider using C++ with LLVM for (mostly) portable code generation. You can even pull in clang as well to work in C parse trees (note that clang has incomplete support for C++ currently, but is written in C++ itself)
For example, you could write a self-modification core in C++ to interface with clang and LLVM, and the rest of the program in C. Store the parse tree for the main program alongside the self-modification code, then manipulate it with clang at runtime. Clang will let you directly manipulate the AST tree in any way, then compile it all the way down to machine code.
Keep in mind that manipulating your AST in a compiled language will always mean including a compiler (or interpreter) with your program. LLVM is just an easy option for this.
JavaScirpt + V8 (the Chrome JavaScript compiler)
JavaScript is
dynamic
self-modifying (self-evaluating) (well, sort of, depending on your definition)
has a C-like syntax (again, sort of, that's the best you will get for dynamic)
And you now can compile it with V8: http://code.google.com/p/v8/
"Dynamic language" is a broad term that covers a wide variety of concepts. Dynamic typing is supported by C# 4.0 which is a compiled language. Objective-C also supports some features of dynamic languages. However, none of them are even close to Lisp in terms of supporting self modifying code.
To support such a degree of dynamism and self-modifying code, you should have a full-featured compiler to call at run time; this is pretty much what an interpreter really is.
Try groovy. It's a dynamic Java-JVM based language that is compiled at runtime. It should be able to execute its own code.
http://groovy.codehaus.org/
Otherwise, you've always got Perl, PHP, etc... but those are not, as you suggest, C/C++/D- like languages.
I don’t want to be dependent on an VM, thats what i meant with compiled :)
If that's all you're looking for, I'd recommend Python or Ruby. They can both run on their own virtual machines and the JVM and the .Net CLR. Thus, you can choose any runtime you want. Of the two, Ruby seems to have more meta-programming facilities, but Python seems to have more mature implementations on other platforms.