问题
When designing a C interface, it is common to let into the public interface (.h) only what needs to be known by the user program.
Hence for example, the inner components of structures should remain hidden if the user program does not need to know them. This is indeed good practice, as the content and behavior of the struct could change in the future, without affecting the interface.
A great way to achieve that objective is to use incomplete types.
typedef struct foo opaqueType;
Now an interface using only pointers to opaqueType can be built, without the user program ever needing to know the inner working of struct foo.
But sometimes, it can be required to allocate such structure statically, typically on stack, for performance and memory fragmentation issues. Obviously, with above construction, opaqueType is incomplete, so its size is unknown, so it cannot be statically allocated.
A work around is to allocate a "shell type", such as :
typedef struct { int faketable[8]; } opaqueType;
Above construction enforces a size and an alignment, but doesn't go farther into describing what the structure really contains. So it matches the objective of keeping the type "opaque".
It mostly works. But in one circumstance (GCC 4.4), the compiler complains that it breaks strict-aliasing, and it generates buggy binary.
Now, I've read a ton of things about strict aliasing, so I guess I understand now what it means.
The question is : is there a way to define an opaque type which can nonetheless be allocated on stack, and without breaking strict aliasing rule ?
Note that I've attempted the union method described in this excellent article but it still generates the same warning.
Note also that visual, clang and gcc 4.6 and later don't complain and work fine with this construction.
[Edit] Information complement :
According to tests, the problem only happens in the following circumstances :
- Private and public type different. I'm casting the public type to private inside the
.cfile. It doesn't matter apparently if they are part of the same union. It doesn't matter if the public type containschar. - If all operations on private type are just reads, there's no problem. Only writes cause problems.
- I also suspect that only functions which are automatically inlined get into trouble.
- Problem only happens on gcc 4.4 at -O3 setting. -O2 is fine.
Finally, my target is C90. Maybe C99 if there really is no choice.
回答1:
You can force the alignment with max_align_t and you can avoid the strict aliasing issues using an array of char since char is explicitly allowed to alias any other type.
Something along the lines of:
#include <stdint.h>
struct opaque
{
union
{
max_align_t a;
char b[32]; // or whatever size you need.
} u;
};
If you want to support compiler that do not have the max_align_t, or if you know the alignment requirements of the real type, then you can use any other type for the a union member.
UPDATE: If you are targetting C11, then you may also use alignas():
#include <stdint.h>
#include <stdalign.h>
struct opaque
{
alignas(max_align_t) char b[32];
};
Of course, you can replace the max_align_t with whatever type you think appropriate. Or even an integer.
UPDATE #2:
Then, the use of this type in the library would be something along the lines of:
void public_function(struct opaque *po)
{
struct private *pp = (struct private *)po->b;
//use pp->...
}
This way, since you are type-punning a pointer to char you are not breaking the strict aliasing rules.
回答2:
What you desire is some kind of equivalent of the C++ private access control in C. As you know, no such equivalent exists. The approach you give is approximately what I would do. However, I would make the opaqueType opaque to the inner components implementing the type, so I would be forced to cast it to the real type within the inner components. The forced cast should not generate the warning you are mentioning.
Although cumbersome to use, you can define an interface that provides "stack allocated" memory to an opaque type without exposing a sized structure. The idea is that the implementation code is in charge of the stack allocation, and the user passes in a callback function to get a pointer to the allocated type.
typedef struct opaqueType_raii_callback opqaueType_raii_callback;
struct opaqueType_raii_callback {
void (*func)(opqaueType_raii_callback *, opqaueType *);
};
extern void opaqueType_raii (opaqueType_raii_callback *);
extern void opaqueType_raii_v (opaqueType_raii_callback *, size_t);
void opaqueType_raii (opaqueType_raii_callback *cb) {
opaqueType_raii_v(cb, 1);
}
void opqaueType_raii_v (opaqueType_raii_callback *cb, size_t n) {
opaqueType x[n];
cb->func(cb, x);
}
The definitions above look a bit esoteric, but it is the way I normally implement a callback interface.
struct foo_callback_data {
opaqueType_raii_callback cb;
int my_data;
/* other data ... */
};
void foo_callback_function (opaqueType_raii_callback *cb, opaqueType *x) {
struct foo_callback_data *data = (void *)cb;
/* use x ... */
}
void foo () {
struct foo_callback_data data;
data.cb.func = foo_callback_function;
opaqueType_raii(&data.cb);
}
回答3:
For me this seems to be something which just shouldn't be done.
The point of having an opaque pointer is to hide the implementation details. The type and alignment of memory where the actual structure is allocated, or whether the library manages additional data beyond what's pointed to are also implementation details.
Of course not that you couldn't document that one or another thing was possible, but the C language uses this approach (strict aliasing), which you can only more or less hack around by Rodrigo's answer (using max_align_t). By the rule you can't know by the interface what kind of constraints the particular compiler would impose on the actual structure within the implementation (for some esoteric microcontrollers, even the type of memory may matter), so I don't think this can be done reliably in a truly cross platform manner.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/31195551/opaque-types-allocatable-on-stack-in-c