Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

50% Positive

Analyzed from 978 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#function#nested#int#functions#context#structure#pointer#stack#block#code

Discussion (20 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

mbeavittabout 2 hours ago
Why would someone want to use a nested function, practically speaking?
mananaysiempreabout 2 hours ago
Good C style is that every function that accepts a callback should also accept an opaque context pointer it then passes through unchanged to the callback. Usually the caller will allocate a structure on the stack or the heap, stash some of its local variables there, then use them in the callback. A nested function does the structure back-and-forth for you in the stack-allocated case. In GCC’s original formulation it also passes the context pointer implicitly

  size_t filter(bool (*predicate)(int), int *p, size_t n) {
      for (size_t r = 0, w = 0; r < n; r++) {
          if (predicate(p[r])) p[w++] = p[r];
      }
      return w;
  }
  size_t lowpass(int limit, int *p, size_t n) {
      bool lower(int value) {
          return value < limit; // use the parent's local variable
      }
      return filter(lower, p, n);
  }
but that requires an executable stack and TFA is about avoiding that part.
anta40about 2 hours ago
Say to strictly enforce modularity, e.g helper functions that can only be accessed within its function.

Pascal supports it (at least Turbo Pascal, no idea about ISO Pascal).

Joker_vD24 minutes ago
For a counterpoint, see David R. Hanson's "Is block structure necessary?" (1981) [0] — back in those days, "block structure" meant nested routines with nested scopes — which argues that having instead a proper module system, with explicit control over what's being exported from a module, not only gives a better modularity, decomposition, and encapsulation, but also simplifies both the language's implementation, and the run-time structures it needs (remember displays, and the hardware support for them e.g. x86's ENTER?).

    Block structure is traditionally considered an a priori requirement for algorithmic program-
    ming languages. Most new languages since Algol-60 have block structure. Reasons exist,
    however, to omit the general form of block structure — nested procedure definitions in which
    references to identifiers defined in outer procedures are permitted — from programming
    languages, especially those intended for systems programming applications. This paper
    reviews the concept of block structure and considers its advantages and disadvantages. It
    concludes that, in many cases, a module facility is superior to block structure and should be
    considered in lieu of block structure in future languages.
[0] https://drh.github.io/documents/blockstructure.pdf
kccqzy9 minutes ago
The traditional way of doing this in C is simply static functions. Every .c file has exactly one non-static function and all the other helper functions are static.
jcranmerabout 2 hours ago
When you want to use lambdas, but your language doesn't have lambdas, so you reach for the nearest thing instead.
ueckerabout 1 hour ago
Lambdas are just anonymous nested functions. But I like named nested functions more because they are more readable and would prefer them in most cases. Ideally you have both as most languages have.

I always wondered why C++ only added lambdas, but observing WG21 for a while, I assume this is just a random walk in language design. (not that it is different in WG14)

mananaysiempreabout 2 hours ago
C++ bundles together a way to write functions inline in an expression (what I’d call “lambdas” in general) and a way to create closures with strictly nested lifetimes, but there’s no law of nature tying the two together. Even in C++ the essentially separate declaration “auto f = [&](... blah ...) { ... 50 lines of code ... };” is pretty common. (And of course GCC’s nested functions predate C++11 by twenty years.)
bobmcnamaraabout 2 hours ago
Just a little cleaner than placing it in the global or file namespaces.
psyclobeabout 1 hour ago
RAII style cleanup e.g. no gotos
sltkrabout 2 hours ago
For the non-capturing case: mainly to improve readability by allowing utility functions to be defined close to where they are used and with short names.

For the capturing case: to access context that is not available through global variables or function arguments, i.e., the same reason why closures are useful in other languages.

Here's an example, where I have a list of points that I want to sort based on distance to a chosen target point. I can use qsort() which takes an arbitrary comparison function, but has no way to provide context to that function beyond the input arguments:

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

    int main() {
        struct Point {
            int x, y;
        } points[3] = {
            { 3, 1 },
            { 2, 2 },
            { 5, 7 } };

        struct Point target = { 4, 5 };

        long dsq(const struct Point *p) {
            long dx = p->x - target.x, dy = p->y - target.y;
            return dx*dx + dy*dy;
        }

        int compare(const void *p, const void *q) {
            long a = dsq(p), b = dsq(q);
            return (a > b) - (a < b);
        }

        qsort(points, 3, sizeof(struct Point), compare);

        for (int i = 0; i < 3; ++i) {
            printf("%d,%d\n", points[i].x, points[i].y);
        }
    }
Note here that dsq() is a local function that accesses the `target` variable in the local function scope.

The usual workaround in standard C is to pass the necessary context as a function argument. That's why qsort_r() exists, which takes a context argument to be passed to compare(), but that's a non-standard GNU extension.

This practice of passing context pointers around is ubiquitous in C code, and it works, but it can get messy especially if you need access to multiple variables or variables from more than one nested scope. There is also a type safety issue: these context pointers are necessarily passed as void* which means they have to be cast back to the real type before use, which is where bugs can be introduced if the caller and receiver disagree on the actual type.

kloopabout 2 hours ago
So that you can name a section of code without polluting the namespace.
mananaysiempreabout 3 hours ago
What about your older patch where -fno-trampolines meant a function pointer could either be a code pointer or a closure (descriptor) pointer, distinguished by a tag?
ueckerabout 2 hours ago
My old patch from 2018? This was not accepted to GCC because it relied on function pointers being aligned and there were concerns with this.

But I prefer this approach anyhow, as it does not impose any run-time cost for checking the tag, and is easier to optimize.

tpoacherabout 2 hours ago
What's a "trampoline"?
jcranmerabout 2 hours ago
In this context:

Nested functions have a different ABI from regular C functions, due to the invisible static chain register that needs to be set up. C has no way of indicating this different ABI, so GCC happily lets you cast a nested function to a C function pointer by creating a little tiny function that puts the right value in the static chain register before calling the nested function. This little tiny function is the trampoline.

Since the trampoline needs to live somewhere, GCC puts it on the stack, requiring the stack to be executable and consequently a whole lot of people hate the feature because it's a walking security nightmare.

kccqzy4 minutes ago
[delayed]
ueckerabout 1 hour ago
Correct (although the nightmare part is a bit exaggerated since return-oriented programming showed that non-executable stack does not help a lot). GCC can also put the trampoline on the heap, but this also has downsides.

For me the main downside of trampolines is that the optimizer can not de-virtualize the trampoline again. This could be implemented, but avoiding the creation of the trampoline in the first place is much better.

mananaysiempreabout 2 hours ago
Could be a number of things depending on context. In this case it’s a short function that adjusts some things and jumps to the actual functions (a “thunk” is another term for this). Specifically, if in GCC you write

  int f(int x) {
      int g(int y) { ... use x and y ... }
      ...
      h(&g);
      ...
  }
then what the compiled code for f does is construct on the stack a short piece of machine code:

  mov <well-known register>, <frame pointer>
  jmp <start of g’s code>
and &g points to the start not of g’s code but of this snippet on the stack, which has the parent function’s frame pointer compiled into it as a literal constant. The snippet is called a trampoline.
monster_truckabout 2 hours ago
It's where you jump and then get immediately bounced back. Basically GOTOs with params