Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #24703

Re: Function factories

Show all headers | View raw

On 08/22/2012 10:40 AM, tom st denis wrote:
> On Aug 22, 6:32 am, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
...
>> If you have the JIT of lcc-win you write:
>>
>> typedef int (*foo)(int);
>>
>> foo adder_factory(int value)
>> {
>>         foo fnPtr;
>>         char buf[512];
>>
>>         sprintf(buf,"int fn(int a) { return a + %d;}",value);
>>         fnPtr = (foo)compile(buf);
>>         return fnPtr;
> 
> You could accomplish similiar [though more longwinded] via compiling
> code and using dlopen() to load it into your process space.

The intent was for the definition of the adder to be contained inside
the definition of adder_factory().

> Both of which are completely OT for this group though.
> 
> BTW: your code doesn't seem to do any sort of error checking.  What if
> compile() fails?

From the way it's used, it would appear to return a pointer. If
compile() fails, it might return a null pointer, in which case
adder_factory() will also return a null pointer, leaving it for the
caller to decide what to do about it. That's a perfectly reasonable way
of passing on the information that the call failed.

However, I think that compile() looks horribly type-unsafe.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Function factories Edward Rutherford <edward.p.rutherford79@REMOVETHIS.gmail.com> - 2012-08-21 20:36 +0000
  Re: Function factories Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2012-08-21 21:55 +0100
    Re: Function factories Edward Rutherford <edward.p.rutherford79@REMOVETHIS.gmail.com> - 2012-08-22 16:36 +0000
      Re: Function factories James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-22 13:01 -0400
        Re: Function factories Edward Rutherford <edward.p.rutherford79@REMOVETHIS.gmail.com> - 2012-08-22 18:33 +0000
        Re: Function factories James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-22 22:26 -0400
  Re: Function factories David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-22 08:34 +0200
    Re: Function factories Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-22 01:52 -0700
      Re: Function factories David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-22 11:34 +0200
      Re: Function factories Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-08-24 17:30 +0100
    Re: Function factories Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2012-08-24 17:29 +0100
  Re: Function factories jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-22 12:32 +0200
    Re: Function factories tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2012-08-22 07:40 -0700
      Re: Function factories James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-22 11:05 -0400
        Re: Function factories jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-23 11:08 +0200
        Re: Function factories Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-08-23 13:27 +0100
          Re: Function factories James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-23 11:13 -0400
            Re: Function factories "Heinrich Wolf" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2012-08-23 18:18 +0200
              Re: Function factories James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-23 12:40 -0400
            Re: Function factories Anand Hariharan <mailto.anand.hariharan@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 09:29 -0700
              Re: Function factories jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-23 18:44 +0200
              Re: Function factories James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-23 12:46 -0400
            Re: Function factories Chicken McNuggets <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2012-08-23 18:02 +0100
              Re: Function factories jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-23 19:24 +0200
                Re: Function factories eq mail <eq.mail.id@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 18:07 -0700
                Re: Function factories Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2012-08-23 21:30 -0400
                Re: Function factories eq mail <eq.mail.id@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 21:46 -0700
              Re: Function factories James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-23 13:35 -0400
                Re: Function factories jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-23 20:13 +0200
              Re: Function factories eq mail <eq.mail.id@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 17:57 -0700
              Re: Function factories Andrew Cooper <amc96@cam.ac.uk> - 2012-08-25 02:35 +0100
            Re: Function factories Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 21:21 +0200
              Re: Function factories James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-23 15:36 -0400
                Re: Function factories Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.invalid> - 2012-08-23 22:09 +0200
                Re: Function factories James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-23 16:20 -0400
                Re: Function factories Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2012-08-23 22:33 +0200
                Re: Function factories James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-23 17:07 -0400
                Re: Function factories Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-23 14:51 -0700
                Re: Function factories Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2012-08-24 00:09 +0200
                Re: Function factories James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-23 19:01 -0400
                Re: Function factories Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-23 16:31 -0700
                Re: Function factories Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2012-08-24 18:31 +0200
                Re: Function factories Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-24 02:37 -0700

csiph-web