Assembly vs. C

Given a particular programming problem, what language should you use to realize the solution? Your choice could very well affect the success or failure of the project. So you’d better choose wisely.

Have you chosen the best programming language for your current embedded project? Your answer may very well depend on how the phrase “best programming language” is defined. Perhaps you’ve chosen the language that produces the most efficient code for your particular processor; or maybe you’ve selected the one that will allow you to finish the coding most quickly or with fewer bugs. Then again, maybe you–like so many of us–are just using the same language you always have.

Even considered within the narrow scope of embedded systems, the decision of what language to use to implement the solution to a given programming problem is a difficult one. Many factors must be considered and different weights given to each of them.

The factors relevant to a language decision probably include at least:

• Efficiency of compiled code
• Source code portability
• Program maintainability
• Typical bug rates (say, per thousand lines of code)
• The amount of time it will take to develop the solution
• The availability and cost of the compilers and other development tools
• Your personal experience (or that of the developers on your team) with specific languages or tools

Links: http://www.netrino.com/Connecting/2000-03/index.php

The ‘C’ test. Part – XVI

Obscure syntax

16. ‘C’ allows some appalling constructs. Is this construct legal, and if so what does this code do?

int a = 5, b = 7, c;
c = a+++b;

This question is intended to be a lighthearted end to the quiz, as, believe it or not, this is perfectly legal syntax. The question is how does the compiler treat it? Those poor compiler writers actually debated this issue, and came up with the “maximum munch” rule, which stipulates that the compiler should bite off as big (and legal) a chunk as it can. Hence, this code is treated as:

c = a++ + b;

Thus, after this code is executed, a = 6, b = 7, and c = 12.

If you knew the answer, or guessed correctly, well done. If you didn’t know the answer then I wouldn’t consider this to be a problem. I find the greatest benefit of this question is that it is good for stimulating questions on coding styles, the value of code reviews, and the benefits of using lint.

Well folks, there you have it. That was my version of the C test. I hope you had as much fun taking it as I had writing it. If you think the test is a good test, then by all means use it in your recruitment. Who knows, I may get lucky in a year or two and end up being on the receiving end of my own work.

 Links:

for “The ‘C’ test. Part – I”  to  “The ‘C’ test. Part – XVI”

http://www.embedded.com/2000/0005/0005feat2.htm

http://www.embedded.com/98/9811/9811fe3.htm 

The ‘C’ test. Part – XV

Typedef
15. Typedef is frequently used in C to declare synonyms for pre-existing data types. It is also possible to use the preprocessor to do something similar. For instance, consider the following code fragment:

#define dPS struct s *
typedef struct s * tPS;

The intent in both cases is to define dPS and tPS to be pointers to structure s. Which method, if any, is preferred and why?

This is a very subtle question, and anyone who gets it right (for the right reason) is to be congratulated or condemned (“get a life” springs to mind). The answer is the typedef is preferred. Consider the declarations:

dPS p1,p2;
tPS p3,p4;

The first expands to:

struct s * p1, p2;

which defines p1 to be a pointer to the structure and p2 to be an actual structure, which is probably not what you wanted. The second example correctly defines p3 and p4 to be pointers

The ‘C’ test. Part – XIV

Dynamic memory allocation

14. Although not as common as in non-embedded computers, embedded systems do still dynamically allocate memory from the heap. What are the problems with dynamic memory allocation in embedded systems?

Here, I expect the user to mention memory fragmentation, problems with garbage collection, variable execution time, and so on. This topic has been covered extensively in ESP , mainly by P.J. Plauger. His explanations are far more insightful than anything I could offer here, so go and read those back issues! Having lulled the candidate into a sense of false security, I then offer up this tidbit:

What does the following code fragment output and why?

char *ptr;
if ((ptr = (char *)malloc(0)) ==NULL)

puts(“Got a null pointer”);
else
puts(“Got a valid pointer”);

This is a fun question. I stumbled across this only recently when a colleague of mine inadvertently passed a value of 0 to malloc and got back a valid pointer! That is, the above code will output “Got a valid pointer.” I use this to start a discussion on whether the interviewee thinks this is the correct thing for the library routine to do. Getting the right answer here is not nearly as important as the way you approach the problem and the rationale for your decision.

…to be continued 

The ‘C’ test. Part – XIII

13. Comment on the following code fragment.

unsigned int zero = 0;
unsigned int compzero = 0xFFFF;
/*1’s complement of zero */

On machines where an int is not 16 bits, this will be incorrect. It should be coded:

unsigned int compzero = ~0;

This question really gets to whether the candidate understands the importance of word length on a computer. In my experience, good embedded programmers are critically aware of the underlying hardware and its limitations, whereas computer programmers tend to dismiss the hardware as a necessary annoyance.

By this stage, candidates are either completely demoralized-or they’re on a roll and having a good time. If it’s obvious that the candidate isn’t very good, then the test is terminated at this point. However, if the candidate is doing well, then I throw in these supplemental questions. These questions are hard, and I expect that only the very best candidates will do well on them. In posing these questions, I’m looking more at the way the candidate tackles the problems, rather than the answers.

…to be continued