Ikke's Blog

Archives for: November 2005

Nov 25
Spam attack

This blog is under a massive referer spam attack at the moment by multiple spambots. I'm trying to get rid of them using .htaccess, but it hardly works.
Those spambots already consumed all my monthly bandwith, so I really need them to go away. If someone knows how to do this (I googled around, no usable help), please let me know asap, otherwise I'll be forced to take this blog down for some days I'm afraid... Maybe I should switch to WordPress here too.

My sincere apologies if I broke something in the blog setup, or if some people are unable to reach the site although they're not spammers.

Nov 23
Non-tech people on tech stuff

Read this.

Reminds me on an article on "Web 2.0" in our newspaper some days ago, and a "readers reaction" on it yesterday. Obviously 2 people who don't understand what it's all about. Sadly enough.

Ikke • Life, LinuxPermalink 3 comments
Nov 19
OOo2 on 770

Nice work, RealNitro!

Ikke • DesktopPermalink 5 comments
Nov 19
Small Valgrind introduction

Everyone writing C or C++ code should know what a memory leak is. You allocate some memory, and never free it.
It can be very hard to make your code memleak free, or even just to know whether your code contains any memleaks.
Luckily, in the Free Software world, we got a great tool to check our code for memleaks (or other errors): Valgrind.

As I don't have time to write a lot now, I'll just give a very simple sample of it's usage.

Here's my code (very bad code, obviously, but hey ;-)):

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

static void function() {
        char *test = (char *)malloc(100 * sizeof(char));
        test[0] = '\0';

        printf("Function\n");

        /* Leaking 100 chars here, 100 bytes */
}

int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
        int *i = NULL;

        function();
        i = (int *)malloc(50 * sizeof(int));
        printf("Done\n");

        return 0;

        /* Leaking 50 ints here. On x86, this is 50*4=200 bytes */
}

As you can see, we leak memory twice: once 100 bytes, once 200.
Let's compile and run our code:

$ gcc -o test -Wall -g test.c
$ ./test
Function
Done

Great, our code works fine (or at least, it looks like it).

Now we introduce valgrind. First we'll do a simple memory allocation check:

$ valgrind --tool=memcheck ./test ==18819== Memcheck, a memory error detector for x86-linux.
==18819== Copyright (C) 2002-2004, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==18819== Using valgrind-2.2.0, a program supervision framework for x86-linux.
==18819== Copyright (C) 2000-2004, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==18819== For more details, rerun with: -v
==18819==
Function
Done
==18819==
==18819== ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors from 0 contexts (suppressed: 13 from 1)
==18819== malloc/free: in use at exit: 300 bytes in 2 blocks.
==18819== malloc/free: 2 allocs, 0 frees, 300 bytes allocated.
==18819== For a detailed leak analysis,  rerun with: --leak-check=yes
==18819== For counts of detected errors, rerun with: -v

Valgrind tells us we leaked 300 bytes, in 2 blocks (one malloc call returns one block, obviously).
It also tells us to re-run the test with the --leak-check=yes flag, which is a good advice:

$ valgrind --tool=memcheck --leak-check=yes ./test
==18826== Memcheck, a memory error detector for x86-linux.
==18826== Copyright (C) 2002-2004, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==18826== Using valgrind-2.2.0, a program supervision framework for x86-linux.
==18826== Copyright (C) 2000-2004, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==18826== For more details, rerun with: -v
==18826==
Function
Done
==18826==
==18826== ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors from 0 contexts (suppressed: 13 from 1)
==18826== malloc/free: in use at exit: 300 bytes in 2 blocks.
==18826== malloc/free: 2 allocs, 0 frees, 300 bytes allocated.
==18826== For counts of detected errors, rerun with: -v
==18826== searching for pointers to 2 not-freed blocks.
==18826== checked 1404368 bytes.
==18826==
==18826== 100 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 1 of 2
==18826==    at 0x1B906B82: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:131)
==18826==    by 0x80483B5: function (test.c:5)
==18826==    by 0x80483F4: main (test.c:14)
==18826==
==18826==
==18826== 200 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 2 of 2
==18826==    at 0x1B906B82: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:131)
==18826==    by 0x8048400: main (test.c:15)
==18826==
==18826== LEAK SUMMARY:
==18826==    definitely lost: 300 bytes in 2 blocks.
==18826==    possibly lost:   0 bytes in 0 blocks.
==18826==    still reachable: 0 bytes in 0 blocks.
==18826==         suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks.
==18826== Reachable blocks (those to which a pointer was found) are not shown.
==18826== To see them, rerun with: --show-reachable=yes

Great, here Valgrind tells us exactly what we're doing wrong.
There are 2 blocks where we leak memory:

  • The first one is at code path
    main (test.c:14) -> function (test.c:5) -> malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:131)
    leaking 100 bytes.
    The vg_replace_malloc.c file isn't ours, it's a valgrind file where the malloc() wrapper (which keeps track of our allocations/free's/...) is located. We're mostly interested in the "function (test.c:5)" part. If we look at line 5, we see this is

    char *test = (char *)malloc(100 * sizeof(char));
    our first allocation. And indeed, if we look further, we never free these 100 chars.
  • Second is at main (test.c:15). Again, we can look at this line:
    i = (int *)malloc(50 * sizeof(int));
    and indeed, we never free these allocated integers again. We allocated 50 ints, and on x86 one int is 32 bits (4 bytes), so we leak 200 bytes (and valgrind was correct once again :-)).

Obviously, valgrind got much more options or checks:

$ valgrind
valgrind: Missing --tool option
Available tools:
        memcheck
        addrcheck
        cachegrind
        corecheck
        helgrind
        massif
        lackey
        none
        callgrind
valgrind: Use --help for more information.

I don't know all of them, actually I only use the memcheck thing, but even when only using one tool, it can be a very useful program.

I got one minor issue with valgrind currently: when it detects memory leaks in some program, it still returns 0 in the end, so it's not easy to integrate valgrind checks in automake's "make check" target. If someone got any pointers how to do this, please let me know!

Nov 12
Nano on Maemo

So, you got SSH access to your Nokia 770, but can't edit any files? Try my Nano package...
It doesn't work yet in the xterm application (I didn't try myself yet, RealNitro told me ;-)), looks like there's some issue with that terminal's CTRL-key emulation...
Anyway, it's meant to be used over SSH, not for on-device purposes...

Now I still should be able to get USB networking working somehow :-( Didn't spend any more time on it though...

Nov 5
Maemo and mDNS

Porting Avahi to the Maemo platform seems to be quite hard (if not impossible) because of the DBUS version conflict (Avahi needs DBUS >= 0.34, whilst the Maemo platform is still based on DBUS 0.2x). There's a DBUS 0.3x branch in Maemo's SVN repository, but that's not stable yet, and will only be used in the InternetTablet2006 releases, so I gave up on Avahi for now :oops:.
Instead, I'm trying to create a good package of Howl now (I know, I don't like the Howl API either), then I'll attempt to build a small (Hildon?) application on top of it, just as a test case for "the real thing" ;-)

*edit*
It works inside my scratchbox (i386) :-)
Built an arm deb package too, installed it on my "real" device, the software runs (no ld errors), but I couldnt test it yet as I don't have a wireless network at home, and didn't manage to get USB networking working yet :-(

Nov 3
Using C++ classes in C

Today I had a little chat with Michiel on #gnome-nl regarding the use of C++ classes in C code (he started learning C again ;-)).

I was fascinated (well, sort of) by this, and tried to get something working. Here's the result:

  • First we need a C++ class, using one header file (Test.hh)

    class Test {
            public:
                    void testfunc();
                    Test(int i);
    
            private:
                    int testint;
    };
    

    and one implementation file (Test.cc)

    #include <iostream>
    #include "Test.hh"
    
    using namespace std;
    
    Test::Test(int i) {
            this->testint = i;
    }
    
    void Test::testfunc() {
            cout << "test " << this->testint << endl;
    }

    This is just basic C++ code.

  • Then we need some glue code. This code is something in-between C and C++. Again, we got one header file (TestWrapper.h, just .h as it doesn't contain any C++ code)

    typedef void CTest;
    
    #ifdef __cplusplus
    extern "C" {
    #endif
    CTest * test_new(int i);
    void test_testfunc(const CTest *t);
    void test_delete(CTest *t);
    #ifdef __cplusplus
    }
    #endif
    

    and the function implementations (TestWrapper.cc, .cc as it contains C++ code):

    #include "TestWrapper.h"
    #include "Test.hh"
    
    extern "C" {
    
    CTest * test_new(int i) {
           Test *t = new Test(i);
    
           return (CTest *)t;
    }
    
    void test_testfunc(const CTest *test) {
            Test *t = (Test *)test;
            t->testfunc();
    }
    
    void test_delete(CTest *test) {
            Test *t = (Test *)test;
    
            delete t;
    }
    }
    

    Some things you should notice:

    1. typedef void CTest
      We typedef CTest to void. This way we can use "CTest *" in our C code as if it's a normal C type, whilst we have compile-time type checks (sort of at least :-)), and it's cleaner than always using "void *"

    2. The use of "extern "C" { }" around all functions (both definitions and implementations). We need this so the compiler won't name-mangle the resulting binaries. If you want to see what name-mangling is:

      $ cat test.c
      #include <iostream>
      using namespace std;
      
      void test() {
              cout << "test" << endl;
      }
      
      int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
              test();
              return 0;
      }
      $ g++ -o nmtest test.c
      $ ./nmtest
      test
      $ nm nmtest
      ***blablabla***
      08048818 t _Z41__static_initialization_and_destruction_0ii
      080487c4 T _Z4testv
               U _ZNKSs4sizeEv@@GLIBCXX_3.4
               U _ZNKSsixEj@@GLIBCXX_3.4
      ***blablabla***

      As you can see, our "test()" function has been renamed to "_Z4testv" by the compiler. This is needed to allow polyphormism in C++, but we don't want this in our C wrapper of course, as we want to know the name of the function we will call!
      This implies we need another function name for every polyphormistic (SP?) class function of our C++ class in the C wrapper.

  • At last, we need some code to test our work (main.c):

    #include <stdio.h>
    #include "TestWrapper.h"
    
    int main() {
            CTest *t = NULL;
    
            t = test_new(5);
            test_testfunc(t);
            test_delete(t);
            t = NULL;
    
            return 0;
    }
    

    This is, once more, braindead simple (C) code, where we use the functions defined in TestWrapper.h.

  • Last but not least, we need to compile everything. I made a basic Makefile to do this (Makefile):

    CFLAGS=-Wall -Werror -g -ansi -pedantic -std=c89
    CCFLAGS=-Wall -Werror -g
    LDFLAGS=-g -Wall -lstdc++
    
    OBJS=Test.o TestWrapper.o main.o
    PROG=test
    
    all: $(PROG)
    default: all
    
    %.o: %.cc
            $(CC) $(CCFLAGS) -c $<
    
    %.o: %.c
            $(CC) $(CFLAGS) -c $<
    
    $(PROG): $(OBJS)
            $(CC) $(OBJS) $(LDFLAGS) -o $@
    
    clean:
            rm -f $(OBJS)
            rm -f $(PROG)
    

Now we can simply call "make" to build the project:

$ make
cc -Wall -Werror -g -c Test.cc
cc -Wall -Werror -g -c TestWrapper.cc
cc -Wall -Werror -g -ansi -pedantic -std=c89 -c main.c
cc Test.o TestWrapper.o main.o -g -Wall -lstdc++ -o test

Finally, we test the resulting binary:

$ ./test
test 5

which is the expected result.

Obviously, writing a wrapper like this by hand can be a boring task. It might be possible to automate/script this, but I don't know whether the result is worth the time one puts into it. Just use plain C, we don't need C++ ;-)

Nov 3
Scratchbox working

Thanks to Bram (and VTK Computer) I got an old 20Gb hard drive, which I needed to be able to install a Scratchbox environment and play around with the Maemo platform.
I managed to install everything by now (although I had one crash again :-(), so I hope I'll be able to start hacking on some apps/libs soon. One of the things I'd love to get working is Avahi, the GPL'ed mDNS stack.

The obligatory shot:

I just followed these steps. They contain one error though: when editing your ~/.bash_profile, you got to add a line containing

export LC_ALL=en_GB

too.

Categories

Who's Online?

  • Guest Users: 471

Misc

XML Feeds

What is RSS?