I simply don't catch why the following does not work. Could someone help me to fix it? It complains (at runtime):
raised CONSTRAINT_ERROR : variant2.adb:21 discriminant check failed
procedure Variant2 is
type POWER is (NONE,GAS, STEAM);
type VEHICLE (Engine : POWER := NONE) is
record
Model_Year : INTEGER range 1888..1992;
case Engine is
when NONE => null;
when GAS => Cylinders : INTEGER range 1..16;
when STEAM => Boiler_Size : INTEGER range 5..22;
Coal_Burner : BOOLEAN;
end case;
end record;
Works : VEHICLE;
Works_Not : access VEHICLE := new VEHICLE;
begin
Works := (GAS,1980,4); -- (1)
Works_Not.all := (GAS,1981,8); -- (2)
end Variant2;
(1) is working, but (2) does not
Thanks in advance!
The RM explicitly states that "If the designated type is composite, [...] the created object is constrained by its initial value (even if the designated subtype is unconstrained with defaults)." (RM 4.8(6/3))
which means you have to reallocate your access type
Works_Not := new VEHICLE'(GAS,1981,8);
(of course, you should deallocate the old access value first (see RM 13.11.2 Unchecked Storage Deallocation), but I leave that as an exercise)
UPDATE: as discussed in the comments
Here's an example you can play around with:
with Ada.Text_IO;
procedure Array_Of_Aliased is
type POWER is (NONE, GAS, STEAM);
type VEHICLE(Engine : POWER := NONE) is
record
Model_Year : Integer range 1888..1992;
case Engine is
when NONE => null;
when GAS => Cylinders : INTEGER range 1..16;
when STEAM => Boiler_Size : INTEGER range 5..22;
Coal_Burner : BOOLEAN;
end case;
end record;
-- array of aliased elements
type Vehicle_Array is array(1..5) of aliased VEHICLE;
-- the access type need to be "all" or "constant" in order to access aliased values
type Vehicle_Access is access all VEHICLE;
Vehicles : Vehicle_Array;
Works : Vehicle_Access;
begin
-- access to the first element of the array. Can't change discriminant this way...
Works := Vehicles(1)'Access;
Ada.Text_IO.Put_Line(POWER'Image(Works.Engine));
-- However, using the array, we _can_ change the discriminant, since it's _not_ an access value
Vehicles(1) := (STEAM, 1890, 20, True);
Vehicles(2) := (GAS, 1981, 8);
Ada.Text_IO.Put_Line(POWER'Image(Works.Engine));
-- We can still update the record elements using the access value, as long as the discriminant stays the same
Works.all := (STEAM, 1900, 15, False);
end Array_Of_Aliased;
As egilhh said, when you allocate a discriminant record using new, you can't change the discriminant of the record you allocated, even though you could do this for a variable of the type (as opposed to an allocated record). This rule has been around since Ada 83. The rationale was, I believe, that it allows the compiler to optimize space when allocating records. In your example, if we assume all the fields (including the discriminant) are 1 word, then the record will be 2 words if ENGINE=NONE, 3 words if ENGINE=GAS, 4 words if ENGINE=STEAM. When Works_Not is initialized, it's initialized to a NONE, which means it may take only 2 words on the heap (note: it's not a requirement that compilers optimize in this way). If it uses only 2 words, then reassigning the record to one with ENGINE=GAS would be a disaster--you'd be overflowing the area that you previously allocated, and stomping on other data.
Whether this was a good language design decision or not, I can't say; I don't know how many compilers, and how many applications, needed to take advantage of this optimization. Somebody 33 years ago thought it would be useful, and they must have had some good reasons for thinking so.
The restriction is annoying but not insurmountable. I've definitely run into it before, multiple times, but the simple answer is to wrap it in another record.
type VEHICLE_DATA (Engine : POWER := NONE) is
record
Model_Year : INTEGER range 1888..1992;
case Engine is
when NONE => null;
when GAS => Cylinders : INTEGER range 1..16;
when STEAM => Boiler_Size : INTEGER range 5..22;
Coal_Burner : BOOLEAN;
end case;
end record;
type VEHICLE is record
Data : VEHICLE_DATA;
end record;
Now_Works : access VEHICLE := new VEHICLE; -- still sets ENGINE=NONE
Now_Works := (Data => (Gas, 1981, 8)); -- legal
Now_Works.Data := (Gas, 1981, 8); -- legal, does the same thing
These are OK because the allocated record is a VEHICLE, which isn't a discriminant record. It's OK to change the discriminant of a subcomponent like this. That's how I've gotten around the rule.
Related
Let the following Ada types be defined:
type Type_Huge is array (1 .. Integer'Last) of Float;
type Type_B is (foo, bar, blop, bloub);
type Type_A ( disc : Type_B := foo) is
record
case disc is
when foo =>
My_int : Integer;
when bar =>
huge_data : Type_Huge := (others => 0.0);
when others =>
null;
end case;
end record;
1- Do you confirm the following ?
my_var : Type_A;
(Type_A'Size = my_var'Size) returns False
2- what is the real value of my_var'Size ?
I would say the size is at least:
Type_B'Size + Integer'Size
3- What is the value of Type_A'Size ?
I would say the size is the max of the possible configurations.
3- Is there anything else the compiler would add (probably hidden) to my_var?
I have also read some articles concerning Value_Size and Object_Size
But I don't get the full picture right now.
Thx
As quoted in another answer the LRM requires 'Size be defined by the implementation for indefinite types; in addition, LRM M.2 (45) requires that the implementation documents this characteristic:
(45) The meaning of Size for indefinite subtypes.
If your compiler is GNAT, this is what it states in its reference manual:
Size for an indefinite subtype is the maximum possible size,
(...).
You can see the compiler's choice when you add compiler switch -gnatR3. The output also lists numbers for 'Value_Size as they depend on the record discriminant's value. (The (...) part talks about sizes of subprogram parameters.)
Quoting section 13.3 in the LRM:
(44) For every subtype S:
(45) S'Size [...]
(48) If S is indefinite, the meaning is implementation defined. [...]
In other words: It is implementation defined.
I have a chunk (1024 bytes) of shared memory between two processes for which I have an address pointing to. I want to copy some data to this shared memory, and read it on the other process. Coming from a C background, it seems easiest to map a record to this address, and then write to the record, but it does not seem to be copying correctly.
Currently, I am trying to convert the pointer to a pointer-to-record type using an Unchecked Conversion, and copy to the record, but I am seeing differences in the data when I compare the original payload with the one received in the second process.
Is this the proper way of doing this?:
type Payload_Array_Type is array (1..255) of Integer_32;
type Common_Buffer_Type is
record
Size : Integer_32;
Payload : Payload_Array_Type;
end record;
type Common_Buffer_Ptr_Type is access Common_Buffer_Type;
function Convert_Common_Memory_Ptr is new Unchecked_Conversion (
Source => System.Address,
Target => Common_Buffer_Ptr_Type);
Common_Memory_Ptr : System.Address;
procedure Copy_To_Common_Buffer
(
Size : Integer_32;
Payload : Payload_Array_Type
) is
Common_Buffer_Ptr : Common_Buffer_Ptr_Type;
begin
Common_Buffer_Ptr := Convert_Common_Memory_Ptr(Common_Memory_Ptr);
Common_Buffer_Ptr.Size := Size;
Common_Buffer_Ptr.Payload(1..255) := Payload(1..255);
end Copy_To_Common_Buffer;
I would try to do it this way:
procedure Payload is
type Payload_Array_Type is array (1..255) of Integer_32;
type Common_Buffer_Type is record
Size : Integer_32;
Payload : Payload_Array_Type;
end record;
for Common_Buffer_Type use record -- representation clause should be common to both processes
Size at 0 range 0 .. 31;
Payload at 0 range 32 .. 1023;
end record;
for Common_Buffer_Type'Size use 1024; -- check this is also used in the other process.
type Common_Buffer_Ptr_Type is access Common_Buffer_Type;
Common_Memory_Ptr : System.Address; -- assuming this is where the shared object resides with a real address, possibly make it constant
procedure Copy_To_Common_Buffer (Size : in Integer_32;
Payload : in Payload_Array_Type) is
Common_Buffer : Common_Buffer_Type;
for Common_Buffer'Address use Common_Memory_Ptr; -- address overlay
begin
Common_Buffer := (Size => Size,
Payload => Payload);
end Copy_To_Common_Buffer;
begin
Copy_To_Common_Buffer (9,(others => 876));
end Payload;
The type definitions should be common to the two processes, and note I've used a representation clause to specify where the components go.
I've used an address overlay to specify the location of where I'm writing, and written the whole record in one go.
Also look up usage of pragma volatile as #Brian Drummond suggests.
I am new to Ada programming.This is my ADA CODE for a program which gives me a list of things when typed a Football legend name in execution time.But I am getting the following errors.Please help me out:
Some of the Errors found are:
1.Discriminants must have a discrete or Access type
2.components "FBClubs cannot be used before end of record declaration
3.discriminant in a variant part must be of discrete part
4."player" is undefined
5."pos" is undefined.
6.no candidate interpretations match the sctuals : = > in call to inherited operation "to_string" at line "type playernames..."
with Ada.Text_Io; use Ada.Text_Io;
with Ada.Integer_Text_Io; use Ada.Integer_Text_Io;
with Ada.Strings.Unbounded; use Ada.Strings.Unbounded;
Procedure football_record is
type Position is (Goalkeeper,Midfielder,Forward,Defender);
type playernames is new Unbounded_String;
type FBClubs is (ACMilan,Man_United,Aresnal,ParisSt.Germain,Real_Madrid,Liverpool,Chelsea,Man_City,Lille,
Tottenham,Ajax,Juventus,Dortmund,Roma,Santos,Roma,Bayern_Munich,Inter_Milan);
type countries is (England,Argentina,Brazil,France,Italy,Portugal,Spain,Germany,Iran,Japan);
type fbplayer(player:playernames) is
record
WCAppearances:Integer;
pos:Position;
country:countries;
fbclubs:FBClubs;
case player is
when "David Beckham" =>
country:countries:=England;
WCAppearances:Integer:=3;
pos:Position:=Midfielder;
fbclubs:FBClubs:=ACMilan &"+" & Man_United &"+" & Real_Madrid &"+"& ParisSt.Germain;
when "Lionel Messi" =>
country:countries:=Argentina;
WCAppearances:Integer:=1;
pos:Position:=Forward;
fbclubs:FBClubs:=Barcelona;
.....and some other 12 players(legends)..
when others =>
country:countries:=Nil;
WCAppearances:Integer:=Nil;
pos:Position:=Nil;
fbclubs:FBClubs:=Nil;
end case;
end record;
begin
Get(player);
Put_Line(To_String(Integer'Image(player)));
Put_Line(To_String(Integer'Image(FBClubs'Image(fbclubs)));
Put_Line(To_Unbounded_String(Position'Image(pos)));
end football_record;
The biggest problem is that you're mixing code in with a type declaration.
In Ada, putting a case within a record is only for variant records; these are records where some fields exist in certain cases but not others. For example:
type Employee_Type is (Regular, Manager);
type Employee (Emp_Type : Employee_Type) is record
Name : Unbounded_String;
case Emp_Type is
when Manager =>
Managerial_Level : Integer;
when Regular =>
null;
end case;
end record;
This is a variant record; we're assuming here that there are two kinds of employees, and the Managerial_Level field makes sense only for one of those kinds. Records whose type is Regular will not have a Managerial_Level field at all.
This syntax isn't what you would use to return different values of fields. Instead, you need to do this in statements, usually in a procedure or function (or package initialization, or some other places that allow statements).
And since you're not using the variant record syntax, you don't need to make player a discriminant. It doesn't work, anyway; in Ada, a "discriminant" (like Emp_Type in my example) has to be a discrete type like an integer or an enumeration type (Employee_Type is an enumeration type), or an access (access discriminants are an advanced concept). It can't be an Unbounded_String. So you'd want to make player a regular field:
type fbplayer is record
player : Unbounded_String;
pos : Position;
country : countries;
clubs : FBClubs; -- Note name change!
WCAppearances : Integer;
end record;
and create a procedure to fill in the fields:
procedure Fill_In_Player(P : in out fbplayer; Player : Playernames) is
begin
P.Player := Player;
if Player = "David Beckham" then
P.country := England;
P.WCAppearances := 3;
P.pos = Midfielder;
P.clubs := ??? -- see below
elsif Player = "Lionel Messi" then
------- etc.
elsif ------
end if;
end Fill_In_Player;
and then call Fill_In_Player when you have the Player and want to set up the record fields. You have to write statements to do this; you can't do it inside the declaration of a record.
Note that in Ada, case statements can only be used on integer or enumeration types. You can't use them to test for a string, as some other languages allow.
Ada does not treat lower-case and upper-case letters the same in identifiers or keywords. Therefore, fbclubs is the same name as FBClubs, and you can't declare the field
fbclubs : FBClubs;
because of the name conflict. I changed the name.
Finally, it looks like you want FBClubs to hold more than one club. But FBClubs is an enumeration type, and can therefore hold only one value at a time. If you want each player record to contain a list of clubs, you'll need to do something else, such as using one of Ada's container types (like Ada.Containers.Vectors.Vector) or something like
type Set_Of_Clubs is array(FBClubs) of Boolean;
where each array value is true if the player played for that club.
I'm not sure that will take care of all your errors, but it looks like you have a lot of work to do already.
I am attempting to understand how to fix this circular dependency. All the examples I can find online suggest using a limited with, but then they demonstrate the use with two basic types, whereas this is a bit more advanced. The circular dependency is between the two files below. I thought it was between package Chessboard ... and the Piece type, but now I am not so sure. Attempting to put the package Chessboard ... line within chess_types.ads after the Piece type is declared and removing the use and with of Chessboard results in an error: this primitive operation is declared too late for the Move procedure. I am stuck on how to get out of this dependency. Any help would be much appreciated!
Thank you
chessboard.ads:
with Ada.Containers.Indefinite_Vectors;
use Ada.Containers;
with Chess_Types;
use Chess_Types;
package Chessboard is new Indefinite_Vectors(Board_Index, Piece'Class);
chess_types.ads:
with Ada.Containers.Indefinite_Vectors;
use Ada.Containers;
with Chessboard;
use Chessboard;
package Chess_Types is
subtype Board_Index is Integer range 1 .. 64;
type Color is (Black, White);
type Piece is tagged
record
Name : String (1 .. 3) := " ";
Alive : Boolean := False;
Team : Color;
Coordinate : Integer;
end record;
procedure Move_Piece(Board: in Vector; P: in Piece; Move_To: in Integer);
end Chess_Types;
More Code for question in comments:
Chess_Types.Piece_Types.ads:
package Chess_Types.Piece_Types is
type Pawn is new Piece with
record
First_Move : Boolean := True;
end record;
overriding
procedure Move_Piece(Board: in CB_Vector'Class; Po: in Pawn; Move_To: in Board_Index);
-- Other piece types declared here
end Chess_Types.Piece_Types;
Chess_Types.Piece_Types.adb:
with Ada.Text_IO;
use Ada.Text_IO;
package body Chess_Types.Piece_Types is
procedure Move_Piece(Board: in CB_Vector'Class; Po: in Pawn; Move_To: in Board_Index) is
Index_From, Index_To : Board_Index;
Move_From : Board_Index := Po.Coordinate;
begin
-- Obtain locations of Pawn to move from (Index_From) and to (Index_To)
-- in terms of the single dimension vector
for I in Board.First_Index .. Board.Last_Index loop
if Board.Element(I).Coordinate = Move_From then
Index_From := I;
end if;
if Board.Element(I).Coordinate = Move_To then
Index_To := I;
end if;
end loop;
-- Determine if the requested move is legal, and if so, do the move.
-- More possibilties to be entered, very primitive for simple checking.
if Move_To - Move_From = 2 and then Po.First_Move = True then
Board.Swap(I => Index_From, J => Index_To); -- "actual for "Container" must be a variable"
Board.Element(Index_From).First_Move := False; -- "no selector for "First_Move" for type "Piece'Class"
elsif Move_To - Po.Coordinate = 1 then
Board.Swap(Index_From, Index_To); -- "actual for "Container" must be a variable"
end if;
-- Test to make sure we are in the right Move_Piece procedure
Put_Line("1");
end Move_Piece;
-- Other piece type move_piece procedures defined here
end Chess_types.Piece_Types;
As a note to understand further, the Coordinate component of each piece correspond to ICCF numeric notation, which is two digits, so there needs to be some type of conversion between the vector and the ICCF notation, hence the reason for the whole for loop at the start.
This is a tough one. It looks like limited with and generics don't play nice together. The only way to make it work is to go back to using your own access type:
with Ada.Containers.Vectors;
use Ada.Containers;
limited with Chess_Types;
use Chess_Types;
package Chessboard_Package is
subtype Board_Index is Integer range 1 .. 64;
type Piece_Acc is access all Piece'Class;
package Chessboard is new Vectors(Board_Index, Piece_Acc);
end Chessboard_Package;
I had to put the instantiation into a new package, and move the Board_Index there too. Also, I changed it to Vectors since Piece_Acc is a definite type and there's no point in using Indefinite_Vectors. But in any event, this defeats the purpose. I'm just not sure Ada gives you a way to do what you want with two packages like this.
Even doing it in one package is not easy:
with Ada.Containers.Indefinite_Vectors;
use Ada.Containers;
package Chess_Types is
subtype Board_Index is Integer range 1 .. 64;
type Color is (Black, White);
type Piece is tagged record ... end record;
type CB_Vector is tagged;
procedure Move_Piece (Board : in CB_Vector'Class;
P : in Piece;
Move_To : in Board_Index);
package Chessboard is new Indefinite_Vectors(Board_Index, Piece'Class);
type CB_Vector is new Chessboard.Vector with null record;
end Chess_Types;
This compiles, but I had to add extra stuff to get around some of the language rules (in particular, when you instantiate a generic, that "freezes" all prior tagged types so that you can no longer declare a new primitive operation of the type); also, I had to make the Board parameter a classwide type to avoid running into the rule about primitive operations of multiple tagged types.
As I understand it, this will do what you want.
with Ada.Containers.Indefinite_Vectors;
use Ada.Containers;
package Chess_Types is
subtype Board_Index is Integer range 1 .. 64;
type Color is (Black, White);
type Piece is abstract tagged
record
Name : String (1 .. 3) := " ";
Alive : Boolean := False;
Team : Color;
Coordinate : Board_Index;
end record;
type Piece_Ptr is access all Piece'Class;
package Chessboard is new Indefinite_Vectors(Board_Index, Piece_Ptr);
procedure Move_Piece (Board : in Chessboard.Vector;
P : in Piece'Class;
Move_To : in Board_Index) is abstract;
end Chess_Types;
NOTES:
Piece is now abstract, as is the Move_Piece method. This will mean you now need to derive your other piece types (package piece_type-rook.ads, with a move_piece method for rook) etc...
Chessboard now contains pointers (Class wide pointers), beware allocating, deallocating, deep copy, shallow copy issues when using it.
You should now be able to call Move_Piece on any dereference of a piece_ptr and have it dispatch to the correct method.
The Move_To parameter is now the same type as the Board_Index. (Coordinate also brought in line) -- this seems a bit clunky, perhaps rethink this. (Row & Column Indices defining a 2D array perhaps? --No need for Indefinite_Vectors)
To answer the second question in the comment:
To use First_Move, the procedure has to know that it's a Pawn. If the object is declared with type Piece'Class, you can't access components that are defined only for one of the derived types. (That's true in most OO languages.) This may indicate a flaw in your design; if you have a procedure that takes a Piece'Class as a parameter, but you want to do something that makes sense only for a Pawn, then maybe you should add another operation to your Piece that does a default action for most pieces (perhaps it does nothing) and then override it for Pawn. Other possibilities are to use a type conversion:
procedure Something (P : Piece'Class) is ...
if Pawn(P).First_Move then ...
which will raise an exception if P isn't a Pawn. If you want to test first, you can say "if P in Pawn". I sometimes write code like:
if P in Pawn then
declare
P_Pawn : Pawn renames Pawn(P);
begin
if P_Pawn.First_Move then ...
end;
end if;
But defining a new polymorphic operation is preferable. (Note: I haven't tested the above code, hope I didn't make a syntax error somewhere.)
I want to declare an array with element-type of a variant record.
Something like this:
type myStruct (theType : vehicleType) is
record
...
when car => numOfWheels : Positive;
when others => null;
end record;
myArray : array (Positive range <>) of myStruct;
But in this case I get error.
It only allows this:
myArray : array (1.100) of myStruct(Car); //such as
So how to solve the index-problem and how to describe an array of a variant record's type without giving it's discriminant?
The example above will not compile. Here is a correct version (I changed mystruct to Integer for simplicity):
procedure test_array is
subtype Vehicle_Array_Index is Integer range 1..100; --// Maximum size is 100
type Arr_T is array (Vehicle_Array_Index range <>) of Integer;
type Vehicle_Array (Size: Vehicle_Array_Index := 1) is record
Vehicles : Arr_T(1..Size);
end record;
begin
null;
end;
One of the errors was that you cannot have anonymous arrays inside records, and second, you should use the discriminant to constrain the array inside.
As mentioned above this is not a good solution for varying-length arrays as most likely you will get a maximum sized array anyway. If you want arrays with dynamically determined sizes you can use blocks for that.
declare
a: array(1..n) of integer; -- n can be a variable here
begin
--some code using a
end;
It also works in the declaration parts of procedures and functions where n can be a parameter passed to the subprogram (one of the advantages Ada has over C/C++). And of course you can just allocate arrays dynamically on the heap using allocators.
If you want to be able to create objects of a discriminated type and change (or figure out) what the type is at runtime, you have to give the discriminant a default value in the declaration.
The reason for this is that Ada doesn't want to have to worry about dealing with uninitialized discriminated objects that it can't even figure out the size and valid record fields of.
For this reason, and some reasons I go into a bit in the comments, Ada discriminated records aren't actually very useful in mixed language programming (eg: exactly duplicating a C union). They can be handy on their own terms though.
For the example you give, you'd do the following (warning: Not compiled):
type myStruct (theType : vehicleType := car) is
record
...
when car => numOfWheels : Positive;
when others => null;
end record;
Then you could set one of the array values at runtime thusly:
myArray(20) := (theType => car,
field1 => myArray(20).field1,
... , --// Fill in the rest of the fields by name
numberOfWheels => 4);
As for this part:
myArray : array (Positive range <>) of myStruct;
You cannot declare actual array objects with an indeterminate range like this. You could declare a type that way, but an object has to have an actual size. If you want an array of varying length, you can once again use a variant record. (Again, not compiled)
subtype Vehicle_Array_Index is Integer range 1..100; --// Maximum size is 100
type Vehicle_Array (Vehicle_Array_Index : Size := 1) is record
Vehicles : array (Vehicle_Array_Index range <>) of myStruct;
end record;
Oh, and one more thing. You aren't doing this in your example, but if you ever want to use your discriminant to size an array like above, beware. When you declare objects of that type (again, assuming you used a default for the discriminant), the compiler will try to reserve enough space for the largest possible size you could ever feed it a value for. That makes it a Very Bad Idea to make a discriminated array indexed by something with a huge range like Integer or Positive. I know computers are bigger these days, but still most folks don't have 4 gig to spare for one silly little array. So if you are using your discriminant as an array index, it would be a good idea to create a smaller subtype of Integer to use for the type of the discriminant.